Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sardars of Vahali: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*'''Weak Keep''' I agree with Eddie's comment above, some history articles are difficult to source and may require a trip to the library or more specialized research, but it does seem like more sources can be found for this. [[User:SeraphWiki|SeraphWiki]] ([[User talk:SeraphWiki|talk]]) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Weak Keep''' I agree with Eddie's comment above, some history articles are difficult to source and may require a trip to the library or more specialized research, but it does seem like more sources can be found for this. [[User:SeraphWiki|SeraphWiki]] ([[User talk:SeraphWiki|talk]]) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak keep''' for now. Really needs more sourcing. I could be convinced to go the other way if no more sources find their way to the article. [[User:Bythebooklibrary|Bythebooklibrary]] ([[User talk:Bythebooklibrary|talk]]) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Weak keep''' for now. Really needs more sourcing. I could be convinced to go the other way if no more sources find their way to the article. [[User:Bythebooklibrary|Bythebooklibrary]] ([[User talk:Bythebooklibrary|talk]]) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
::The article has existed since June of 2012. How many more years do you think should be given for sources to find their way?--[[User:Rpclod|Rpclod]] ([[User talk:Rpclod|talk]]) 11:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:57, 14 January 2018
- Sardars of Vahali (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)
We don't have such articles unless there is significant coverage. No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - owning land in two villages is insufficient notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep -I'm open to changing my mind, but it appears to me that, despite there is only one source in the article at present, it is still on a notable topic. Though I don't own a copy, it appears they are also covered in "Punjab Chiefs" as well. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I agree with Eddie's comment above, some history articles are difficult to source and may require a trip to the library or more specialized research, but it does seem like more sources can be found for this. SeraphWiki (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep for now. Really needs more sourcing. I could be convinced to go the other way if no more sources find their way to the article. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- The article has existed since June of 2012. How many more years do you think should be given for sources to find their way?--Rpclod (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)