The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gurjar clans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced unmaintainable mess, and has as much place here as the headings in a phone book. This is an excellent example of what Wikipedia is not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve – A functional WP:SETINDEX article, about groups that share a similar name. Also the article is not "unreferenced," as incorrectly stated in the nomination; it currently has one source. The information is also verifiable, see [1] for starters (already in the article prior to this nomination). Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A foreign topic and old source that deals with clans which is verifiable and obscure, but valuable information. Many topics on India on Wikipedia are a mess with language, sourcing and interwiki links, but deleting listings of recognized clans and their pages seems a bit much. Also, many of these can be interwiki linked, I don't have my good method since I lost my tool, but some of them seem to be similiar to Pakistan tribes like the Aheer and Alpial which are existing articles, but not linked yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ordinarily I'd say delete but, for a change, this list seems to come with a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 11:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the source is deceptive, a search within the source for "Miyana" [2] doesn't return anything, neither does one for "Khepar" [3], or "Bokra" [4]. However, another search for Miyana shows that it's a Pashtun tribe, looking at the Jat article, it's a different ethnic group, Patel is again a different group and so on. Just because a source is listed it doesn't mean that the article follows it. All this was highlighted in the previous nomination too. Apparently, the nominator appears to have confused Wikipedia for an encyclopaedia and has decided to nominate this article based on these absurdities. —SpacemanSpiff 11:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should like to apologise for confusing Wikipedia with an encyclopaedia. I should know better after all these years of editing here. It is a social experiment to prove that the alleged Wisdom of Crowds provides lowest common denominator works. Those who don't spot this miss the ironic nature of the entire project. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.