Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seyan (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. The first nomination resulted in a keep. No one commented this time. I have no prejudice against speedy renomination. SarahStierch (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seyan

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

My apologies for dragging this up again - for some reason I didn't watchlist the previous discussion and thus people were misguided. That discussion contained no valid reason to keep, despite appearances. GNG does require that there is significant coverage in (generally multiple) independent reliable sources rather than a mere mention, although Warden seemed to think otherwise. Candleabracadabra !voted to keep on the basis that the consensus was to keep, which is surely not a valid reason - it is a sort of piling on effect.

The sources presented by Warden in that discussion are not reliable. Little from the Raj ethnography ever is, aside from perhaps E. A. Gait. We can't redirect to some caste-related article if all we have is the official Raj ethnographies because they routinely got caste groups mixed up etc and indeed were contradictory & couldn't even agree what was a caste, a gotra, a misl, a Jat, a Rajput etc. Given that their methodology was often that of scientific racism, best exemplified by H. H. Risley, or uncritical regurgitation of what the locals told them - James Tod - it is probably not surprising.

This is just a family name but without any discussion about it in reliable sources, it it not notable even as that. Sitush (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2013 (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.