Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhogal

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhogal

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

Not notable. Mentioned in a list of clans produced by one of several caste associations but not discussed in any significant manner in reliable sources. Sitush (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 October 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, Mr.Z-man 20:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Lack of sources also suggests this is a non notable subject. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bit unsure about this article. Seems from Google Books, the article is accurate and factual, i.e notable. There seems to be a fair number of these Sikh warrior clans, but there is no individual entries on them, or included as details as part of caste articles. Also on top of that, that article is woeful, none or bad sources, badly formatted, and worked on for over a year and it still looks terrible/no links. Although it could be an Indian speaker who created it and is having problems working in English. scope_creep talk 19:21 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete as lacking sourcing. There are lots of things in google that use this word, but they don't all appear to be the same thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:40, 17 October 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.