Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phaphra

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phaphra

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

Fails WP:GNG. It is a type of grain and may possibly be a place but there are no sources for this as a tribe other than mirrors and the hopelessly unreliable H. A. Rose, an amateur ethnologist of the British Raj era. WALTHAM2 (talk · contribs) removed the PROD, which led to this discussion. WALTHAM2 has now indicated that they have withdrawn from the project. Sitush (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nom fails WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Who made this determination about H. A. Rose being an "amateur ethnologist"? How can such a determination be made about any body? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a widespread consensus that we do not use the pseudo-ethnologists of the British Raj era, of which Rose is an example. They were scientific racists, had no training in the subject matter, took as gospel that which they were told (ignoring issues such as sanskritisation), relied far too heavily on the biassed accounts of Brahmins, and so on. Their writings often contain internal contradictions because of their taking things as gospel during their travels, and they are rarely if ever cited nowadays in a context that supports their reliability. To understand them, one has to appreciate why the Raj supported such people, which lies in a perceived need to control the populace following the 1857 mutiny: their efforts followed a bureaucratic agenda designed to bolster empire, not study for study's sake. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Added ref which is not based on H. A. Rose's findings, multiple sources about same subject cannot be wrong, review and let me know if it is good enough to keep this article. Moreover, i don't think a Raj historian would have any benefit by mentioning a two-liner of Phaphra tribe. To reject a source as a lie or untrue, you would have to find the objective behind it. Why would a historian lie about a tribe's existence such as Phaphra, no matter who he might be? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added is a book written by H A Rose, nothing different here. -- SMS ^Talk 20:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says the book is written by Maclagan Ibbetson Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the book's front cover. -- SMS ^Talk 20:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because you have obviously not evaluated the source, which is indeed Rose, nor evaluated my explanation to your original !vote. I've also struck your second !vote - you get one bite at the cherry and it confuses people if it looks otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails gng. Can't see anything on google books other than as discussed above. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Just a question though, please do not take it the way my opinion was taken the last time. Is there a Wikipedia policy stating that British Raj authors are unreliable and mentions the names of authors who are considered unreliable or any Wikipedian can make that determination that this, this and this author's work is unreliable and do not consider his/her work as a reliable source. For example, is there any policy which mentions H. A. Rose is a british raj author or a policy mentioning his name as an unreliable source. If not then who makes the determination, who is unreliable and who is reliable? Although i am not a big fan of british raj authors and i personally hate them myself but Wikipedia is not about personal hatred or about personal opinion towards any body. My attempt was only to save a piece of information from being deleted and it was not a personal attack on any body, i hope it clears every thing and i hope i get a proper and professional answer to my questions. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that declares a source as unreliable explicitly, rather there is a guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources using which editors analyze a source. If some editors find themselves having conflicting opinion about a source there is a noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard) where they can seek community's input. -- SMS ^Talk 22:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN has rejected some of them in the past, and common sense + a bit of background knowledge indicates that rejection applies to just about all of the "ethnographers" (read H. H. Risley, for example - colour charts and nose sizes, indeed). They have also been rejected across numerous article talk pages, which have included input from RSN regulars who are not regular editors of the subject area, eg: Itsmejudith (talk · contribs). Perhaps unsurprisingly, when such sources are not favourable to a particular caste/tribe/clan, members of the specific communities also reject them ... but they like them when the sources are favourable. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified that my name was mentioned. Generally, not just in relation to India, we should treat any history written before 1945 with great care, because it may contain unjustified assertions about ethnicity. The exception is when a text is still considered to be the standard work. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have done some additional research on this topic after my last note and I have found a significant number of villages containing word Phaphra in their name mainly in Pind Dadan Khan Tehsil of Jhelum District and i am sure they are not named after a grain, they must have been after the name of the tribe living in those villages and we have also have a reference to that fact, although it might not be reliable to some but still we should consider that since there is no policy mentioning that he is unreliable. At this point it is only people's opinion vs. people's opinion. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad, to say that a village's name is Phaphra so there must be people living in that village belonging to a tribe with the same name is Original research and is not allowed at Wikipedia. -- SMS ^Talk 00:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I was talking from a point of view of not accepting the notion of H. A. Rose being unreliable plus considering the common sense of village names not being on a grain. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Additional ref have been added, this should be a speedy keep now. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained in the nomination statement, a non notable tribe that hardly finds a mention in a reliable source. The subject finds just a passing mention in the two (similar/same) sources in the article, while the source itself seems to be commentary done by Justice Shadi Lal, that proves nothing more than its existence. And Existence is not equal to Notability. -- SMS ^Talk 03:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is a source from Sir Shadi Lal and there is H. A. Rose as well, where no where in Wikipedia's policies, it says that both of these sources are unreliable. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would have (in fact it has already been cited to you) but its useless to cite a policy/guideline to you as you already said they are flawed and you can twist them in any and every way. -- SMS ^Talk 12:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I did not say that i can twist them, i said or i meant to say that they are being twisted by experienced editors to cite them however they want and to use them however they want. You can still cite me a policy and i will accept it if it mentions these two names anywhere that they are unreliable or it says that British Raj authors are unreliable and it defines who British Raj authors are and these two people come under that definition but if you are just going to cite a general guideline then i am sorry to say it can be interpreted in many ways and people are using those loop holes in policies to achieve whatever they want here. It's like a dictatorship here without a constitution and dictators are saying that constitution is what i say and interpret. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is WP:CONSENSUS with regard to WP:RS. In addition, WP:GNG is not met since the sources do not discuss the subject matter: I've told you on several occasions that mere presence in a list is not an indicator of notability. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here is what i have to say, since i worked on this and spent time on this, let me add H. A Rose back and any other sources that i have in sight and then after that we leave it to closing admin to decide whether he/she consider the article worth keeping or not. If it gets deleted, the whole article goes and if the decision is made to keep it, the article and all the sources including H. A. Rose stay but in order for closing admin to fairly decide this matter, all the sources available need to go in. I will only make one comment after this comment that all the sources i could find are in and we will leave to closing admin thereafter. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use unreliable sources. The closing admin is supposed to evaluate the consensus of this discussion, not make some unilateral decision based on the content of the article. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is another source added to the article, closing admin should consider that when making a decision. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It is practically the same source as previously: Raj, court-based, basically a list etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not, they are three different people, four different book, they cannot be all wrong. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to support WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:12, 8 March 2014 (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.