Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitafi

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. Thanks to Rich Farmbrough. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pitafi

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

Fails WP:GNG. No non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. clpo13_(talk) 16:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. There is this, but it is just a passing mention. Nothing else strikes me as a reliable source. /wia /tlk 17:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: given Rich Farmbrough's solid researching, I'm amending this to a keep. I don't currently have access to the fourth reference, which would be a key one to assess notability, but the others certainly do establish existence from colonial sources. /wia /tlk 15:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give a strong presumption of notability to human ethnic groups, but I can find basically no information on this tribe. Not even enough to be sure that it is not a mistaken name for some other tribe. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- After recent edits, I am now neutral on the issue. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are several google book hits, but from colonial era documents as well as Pakistan era documents. --Soman (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be added that this was initially a proposed deletion on 29 October 2015‎, which was overturned and deprodded shortly after by 2602:30a:2efe:f050:6c6f:3b3d:9f18:9068 (talk · contribs) who was later blocked for disruption. As the article currently stands, there are no reliable sources which would support the existence of this article, nor have there been since the inception of this article on 12 July 2013‎ from what I can tell. Should evidence of reliable and non-trivial coverage of this tribe come forward during this discussion please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page for consideration. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of recent changes by RIch Farmbrough. I defer to experienced editors whether or not the page should be merged to a parent article or not. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found half a dozen references that demonstrate the existence of the tribe. If the subject can not be shown worthy of its own article Merge into a suitable parent article, which can be created if required. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rich Farmbrough's edits look pretty good at first glance. User:Wikiisawesome, User:Antrocent, User:Yamaguchi先生: care to revisit? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 14 November 2015 (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.