Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budania

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budania

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

Jwesley78 (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give us the reason why you think this article should be deleted. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete it its have information of the Budania people and their villages. User - Bhupendra

Sorry for not including this earlier:

(1) The lone citation on this page is The Modern History of Jats. I looked for this book on worldcat.org, and apparently the book does not exist. (no verified sources)

(2) The article sat with "gibberish"(?) like "rajender singh S/o Sh. Dunia Ram budania prabhu dayal S/o Sh Banwari Lal budania" for several months with no editor removing it. (uncorrected vandalism)

"Not in English" =!= "gibberish"!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gibberish" was not meant as an insult. Considering this article is in the English wikipedia, it's expected that the content be in English. For most English speakers, this was "gibberish". Jwesley78 (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(3) The topic appears to be highly esoteric, naming a gotra that is distributed within neighborhoods(?) of Jaipur city? (lacks notability)

It is not highly esoteric as said by Jwesley78. Google search on Budania word shows 24,400 hits right now. Hindi word बुडानिया shows 1300 hits in spite of the limitation that google is still not working properly in Hindi language. The clan has other variants like Burania which have not yet been explored. Technical problem here is that Hindi language alphabet ड़ which appears in the clan name has no English equivalent. The clan is found in a vast area covering the states of Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab in India. It also found in Pakistan Punjab. Thus covers at least two big countries. Founder of the Budia state Birbal was a highly notable person in the Indian history. It also has references to great historian like Megasthenes. My point is that it needs to be expanded without any bias. By deletion Wikipedia will be at great loss. Some experts on Indian context also need to comment here.burdak (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are several tens of articles covering the various tribes and clans of the Jats people. I suppose I don't understand the significance of having an article for each "tribe and clan", but it looks to me to be "overkill". (A link for our reference: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion.) Jwesley78 (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral until Jwesley78 explains something about this nomination. Alexius08 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this clan is famous as a whole, its article could be kept. However, only a few members claimed fame. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - I do not understand what purpose will be served by deletion. Each clan of Jats has its own history and ethnological significance. These clans retained their ancient character in spite of all historical adverse factors. I understand that references are few because they do not have recorded history. This matter about certain clans was discussed earlier also and consensus was to retain. Slowly and slowly these articles are expanding. I will devote some tome to edit and improve the article from some other references I have got with me. Deletion will be at loss as it is connected with many other articles which shows its significance. burdak (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that there is no way to find proper English language sources for this content ("because they do not have recorded history")? Without the ability to cite reliable sources, this content does not belong on Wikipedia. It perhaps belongs on some other Wiki site dedicated to the Jats. Jwesley78 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could verify that the book "The Modern History of Jats" truly exists in print (and can be found in libraries such that a sufficient number of editors for this article could have access), and the book verifies most of what is stated in this article then I would agree that the article belongs on Wikipedia. Jwesley78 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the citation is that that's just a translation of the actual title, "Ādhunik Jat Itihasa". I haven't been able to find that either, but maybe someone familiar with Indian library catalogs can. --Chris Johnson (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for "proper" sources to be in English. Having said this I have tried searching for Budania+Jat in Hindi, and only found 23 web hits and 4 news hits, with nothing from Google Books or Google Scholar. I'm not linguistically qualified to say whether they amount to significant coverage in reliable sources, and I don't even know whether Hindi is the appropriate language to be searching in, so I only offer this as information to inform the debate rather than any recommendation. I have been unable to track down the book provided as a source. Maybe someone can let us know the title of this book in its native script? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book is in Hindi language. The title of the book in Devanagari is आधुनिक जाट इतिहास, which translates to Modern History of Jats. It is published by Jaypal Agencies, 31A,Subhashpuram, Agra-282007. Its new edition was published on 15 January 1998. I have got a copy of the book with me. Budania in Hindi is बुडानिया. It is searchable on google and has 1280 hits right now. It shows its notability. I do not think that content in English is the only criteria for notability. If this is the case then the purpose of Wikipedia will be defeated. burdak (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1280 hits on google for the book does not show "notability" for this article. BTW, in a search for this book I found this wiki: http://www.jatland.com/home/Main_Page that appears to be devoted to the Jats. Jwesley78 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator has raised content issues, which can and should be resolved without a deletion debate. The book whose existence is doubted is used as a source or reference in nearly 100 articles, so if it does pose a problem there's a much broader issue to look into. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo, you may have overlooked issue #3 on the "notability". Jwesley78 (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Neither being "esoteric" nor relating to a limited geographical area is an indication of a lack of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'll confess to a non-familiarity with Indian or Hindu culture but if I read the article correctly it's about a rather large clan, one of a large number of similarly large clans. No notability for the clan is asserted other than that it had several (arguably) notable members. There's no inherent notability in families or surnames, whether or not famous people have been associated with them, and as no other claim of notability is made the article doesn't pass WP:N. (See also WP:MILL.) Delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Jwesley78 (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the books are in Hindi, and not on internet, then they are not reliable? As an extreme analogy: Is the Bible reliable? - BrijD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.59.36 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrijD, I'm not sure which side you're trying to support. Jwesley78 (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about archiving knowledge.

One cannot simply go about deciding what is notability and what is not, on the basis of a few , admittedly sincere people, whose sincerity though may be misplaced( in this case_).

What is notable for one , may not be notable for others.

As people who wish to know more about this clan, will search as an increasingly 'first option' is to look at Wikipedia.

If Wikipedia does not contain a page on Budania, does that mean this important clan should cease to exist or change its name.

Strong Vote to keep!

Ravi Chaudhary

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is "about" archiving knowledge, but not all knowledge. Only knowledge that is verifiable and notable (among other things). Although, the terms "verifiable" and "notable" appear to have a much weaker meaning than I thought! And, of course, the Budania clan can continue to exist even if its article is deleted. :-) Jwesley78 (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might help: WP:DIRECTORY. These "gotra" articles appear to each be a "directory" entry, with no individual "gotra" being particularly notable. Are each and every one of the gotras "notable"? Which ones are or are not? Jwesley78 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that any information which adds to the list of all the possible sources of information about the world and its constituents, should be considered good knowledge, especially for an encyclopedia. - BrijD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.52.128 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if we cannot find any further sources. A single volume is not the verifiable, significant coverage required to qualify for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The subject seems to be notable and has some sourcing. More work needs to be done to improve the sourcing which may be tricky because of the language barrier. But deletion doesn't seem helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. After thinking this over and reading other editors' comments, I think the article should be kept (assuming the source checks out as being valid). It's not particularly "notable", but neither are U.S. High Schools and many of them have Wikipedia articles. The strongest reason lies in the lack of sources and, in my opinion, the inability for many editors to have access to this source (since, according to Worldcat.org, there's not a library in the world that holds this book). More sources should be added. Perhaps citing http://www.jatland.com would even be acceptable. Jwesley78 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the main concern here seems to be with whether a source that is used in nearly a hundred articles can be accepted as reliable I would suggest that it would be better to keep this for now, but maybe to have a wider discussion at WikiProject India or the reliable sources noticeboard about whether this is an acceptable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2009 (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.