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 delete. Mkativerata (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhim Singh Dahiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Of the 6 sources, 4 are books written by subject himself, and a 5th is just web excerpts of one of Dahiya's book. The 6th source isn't unambiguously about Dahiya, but even if it is, 1 independent source is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. A Google Scholar search didn't reveal anything else significant. As such, this person does not seem to meet WP:BIO and should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. This author has written a few books which support a rather speculative view of Jat history - one which is not generally accepted. Even if the article is retained, it should be carefully edited to rewrite material such as: "Also, Arnold J. Toynbee, the highly reputed historian of Anglo-American origin, noted:..." which seems to imply some sort of authority for him because of his "Anglo-American" origin. Also, false and unsupported statements such as: "Most Chinese, Western and most Indian historians refer to the Guti as ‘'Yuezhi’'." need to be heavily qualified and referenced, or removed. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication that he trained or worked as a historian in any way. An amateur writer, apparently purveying a nationalistic pseudohistory. Not notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sourcing is very poor, he appears not to be much cited by academic historians/anthropologists, and his interpretation of events appears indeed to amount to pseudo-history. Which would explain the lack of recognition. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Some of these theories have been discussed (courtesy of other articles) at WP:FTN and the point is they aren't notable fringe, so the author even less so, as also seen by the lack of any reliable source, either news or scholarly coverage. For what it's worth, this is also part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20101122. —SpacemanSpiff 21:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Bhim Singh Dahiya is author of following published books:Jats, the Ancient Rulers: a clan study, Aryan Tribes and the Rig Veda, History of Hindustan Vol. I, History of Hindustan Vol. II, History of Hindustan Vol. II. In addition to above books on history he has published number of papers. He is thus author of multiple published sources with wide circulation. He has made a widely recognized contribution in specific field of Jat History and the history of India. He has originated a significant new concept in the history and migration and origin of Jat people. He is member of Indian Revenue Service which is a reputed service in India. Those in favour of deletion of this article should fist go through his writings and then suggest any thing. How can we decide about an author without reading his creations.

I have observed one point here that a group of certain biased people have assembled to delete content about Jat history and Jat people which needs to be stopped and a neutrality of Wikipedia has to be maintained. I strongly support to keep.burdak (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Read a book of this author in addition to his article on sites like Iran Chamber Society :History ,his work is based on extensive research and clears identity of Moriyas and many other ancient groups about whom little was known earlier.Regarding Yeuzhi,Guti Jate same observation is made by many other eminent scholars like Alexander Cunnigham .I suggest a strong keep for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.93.139 (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the keeps, the reason we can recommend deletion is because simply being an author does not necessarily make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This would be true whether the author was writing on Indian castes, ancient Chinese pottery, or modern French pop music. In order to prove that the subject is notable, you need to show that other reliable sources have already discussed the author in significant detail. If you know of any sources that talk about Bhim Singh Dahiya, not written by him directly (and not just copies of his work like the iranchamber.com site), then please let us know, or add them to the article, and, if there are enough such sources, the article will be kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this author has written after extensive research, many hidden things about the ancient history have been disclosed with great logic. I don't think it makes sense to delete the article about such a great author. I don't understand who are the people and why do they envy of such a great author and want to get deleted a small introduction of the author. Wikipedia, please beware, a group of some members is working against a community, don't fall prey of their tactics I recommend a strong keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.75.82 (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2011 (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.