Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1901 Census of Rajputana

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. Davewild (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1901 Census of Rajputana[edit]

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

This is a transcription of a primary source that is known to be unreliable. It includes links to numerous other articles that may or may not in fact be the communities designated in the census. Basically, it is verifiable only due to a failure to comply with WP:RS. Without context, and with the links, it is effectively useless.

I am sure some other articles in this same series, by the same creator, have already been deleted. I will try to track them down and leave an additional note here. Sitush (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my creation of Census of India prior to independence. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep -- Sometimes a bad estimate is better than no estimate. This purports to be a summary of about 25 pages of data. If that existed somewhere else, it might be appropriate to have a short critical article with a link to an external data source. I have read Census of India prior to independence (which needs renaming to Censuses in India prior to independence), from which it is clear that the British had difficulty in obtaining accurate data. Nevertheless, however bad they are, the results exist, which measn that it is appropriate for WP to report them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of keeping rubbish? Only ARS usually want that. We have a critical article, as you have read, and both the figures and the links in this nominated article are wrong. They are not even estimates but rather flawed and inconsistently enumerated exercises in scientific racism. It wasn't so much that the Brits had difficulty getting the information as they didn't understand it, either before, during or after each census: thus they couldn't plan properly and they couldn't analyse. Many millions of people appeared and disappeared in the records for each area/community etc and, worse, the Brits ignited the fuse of caste rivalry with their stupidity, ignorance and flawed attempts to control, resulting in the mess that is Indian society today. If you have not understood their fundamental lack of understanding from the Census of India prior to independence article then either you need to re-read the thing or I need to rewrite it.
Time and again, this stuff has been deleted and I see no reason why this particular example should be any different. Take a look at all of the article creator's "X clans of Y division" articles that have been deleted, all relying on censuses such as that of 1901 and all merely regurgitating the tables as is done in this particular article. People want to read that? Fine, they can: the creator has left WP and is now happily republishing this nonsense elsewhere. Here, umpteen experienced contributors the India-related sphere have consistently said "delete". - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can certainly see the value in covering this topic with an article that outlines the context, methods, results, consequences, etc. of the 1901 census, but that appears to be what Census of India prior to independence does. If the population estimates are useful, then they can be summarized at Rajputana, where they can be put into context. As it stands, this fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this clearly violates WP:NOT#STATS and WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK. I trust Sitush's expertise on this subject. 50.248.37.26 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but... the concept is almost certainly notable as for any census, and especially one this modern, almost certainly commentary exists discussing its significance and implications. None of those sources are cited here and it is a requirement that Wikipedia articles meet notability criteria. Right now the article is a sort of transcription. Definitely this text could go into Wikisource, but not in its current abbreviated and revised format. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2015 (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.