Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chib (clan)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chib (clan)

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

Declined prod. Proposing deletion as subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources, but were not successful. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable RS to establish importance, size or notability, though a quick googles search does indicated they are a clan in Pakistan. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. These appear to be a distinct people with a political and administrative history over a region. While I am not that interested in the subject- there are quite a few books that come up in a google book search for "Chib Clan". They are mentioned many times in books on the history of the Punjab region as well as in the writings of British ethnographers such as Sir Denzil Ibbetson. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmmapleoakpine: British Raj era sources, such as Ibbetson, are not reliable. What other sources have you found in your GBooks search? I've never been able to find much of note in all my years of trying, so I'm curious. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: There are lots of Raj era sources here (yes, yes, unreliable for details, but possibly does indicate existence/notability). Regarding non-Raj - there are these [1] [2] [3] - which appear possibly reputable but are only available in snippet view (which has made me hold off from !voting here as of yet).Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, yes, they exist. No denying that. The issue is whether there is non-trivial independent reliable coverage etc, not existence. I, too, haven't !voted at this stage because I want to do one last trawl and so far haven't found the time to do so. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also these (which I'm less sure about regarding RSness, though some have multi-page coverage per their index) - [4][5][6][7]. Chibhal (this article and a region) seems connected (and named for them - at least the region per multiple sources here). However, I wasn't able to find anything online that is not snippets.Icewhiz (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two blog posts that are very extensive https://chibrajputs.blogspot.com/ and https://newpakhistorian(dot)wordpress(dot)com/tag/chib-tribe/ as well as a facebook post https://www.facebook.com/manjrajputhistory/posts/1776159562649871:0. While these are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, they contain so much specific information, you can't call them trivial either. I think we have to consider that there must be extensive (and reliable) information out there and should not prematurely delete this article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps also- this museum website could be considered a reliable source: http://www.royalkangra.com/intro.html ? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-starter.Reliable sources are a non-negotiable requirement.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on Winged's comment, caste communities are notorious for embellishing and even outright making-up history etc. That's why we do not allow caste-affiliated websites as sources. Add into the mix that anyone can call themselves a caste, using any name they choose, and it really isn't a good idea. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2018 (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.