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. Killiondude (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khichar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. They probably do exist but I can find only mentions in lists, not substantive coverage in reliable sources. Khichar is certainly a last name but we cannot repurpose the article as a set index because we seem not to have articles for anyone who bears it. Khichad appears to be some sort of foodstuff but I'm struggling to find notability there, too. We cannot redirect to Johiya due to lack of sources. Sitush (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Nothing apart from Raj-era Sources/Lists.From Facebook etc, it's a last name but no person with the title has became notable enough.And, I believe the food stuff is Khichdi.Winged Blades^Godric 09:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Johiya. This - [1] seems to be a modern (2006) reference. Several older references - [2][3][4][5]. However, for the most part they seem to be discussed as a sub-branch of Johiyas and both articles are short.–Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your first ref (Nijjar) is not reliable per consensus (pseudohistory). The rest are also not reliable per general consensus about Raj sources etc. We also should not merge something that isn't sourced and has been tagged as such for some time. What you have to understand in particular is that, for example, people created "fictitious" caste groups for amateur ethnographers of the Raj era. Based on their own family names, they're not dealt with now because they never actually existed/were never accepted by their peers etc. They not individually notable as hoaxes either. This has all been discussed in the past. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to such a discussion regarding Bakhshish Singh Nijjar? I do see that other works of his (by the same Published) are cited on Wikipedia (e.g. in Punjab Province (British India)), as well as in google-scholar (though admittedly - not widely), and his stated bio (B.S. Nijjar, M.A.; Ph.D. (History); M.A. (Punjabi); M.A. MOL (Persian); Hons. (Persian, Urdu & Punjabi); is an erudite scholar and a historian of great repute. He retired as Director, Punjab State Archives & Archaeology, Patiala where he put in 21 years of distinguished service. He was also a member of Indian Historical Records Commission, and Curator, Historical Museum, North Platte, Nebraska, USA. Presently based in California, USA, he takes keen interest in historical research and writing on its various aspects. seems passable. If deemed unreliable, there are a number of other articles that should be cleaned up.Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with you - it invariably ends up being pointless. He e is regularly removed from articles by other people than me (perhaps also because he was a Jat, which de facto makes him unreliable for anything to do with Jats), and in any case the page of the book that you link to is a most preposterously slim claim for notability. It is literally a name in a list. I'm pretty sure he is dead, btw - 2011 or 2012, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point to any such a discussion with consensus (I do see - your post regarding whether writing an article on him is worthwhile, and this undiscussed talk-page item copied to several different articles by John Hill, and I see a number of places where you say there is a consensus (without further discussion)) - it isn't that I haven't looked) - and I'll change my !vote in a flash. In any event - he is currently cited in ~20 different enwiki articles - so they are probably due for cleanup if your assertion is correct.Icewhiz (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- significant RS coverage to justify an article not found. There's nothing to merge as the article lists no sources and consists of 1.5 lines of text. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with K.e.coffman. Could not find anything which justifies an article. Hagennos (talk) 05:22, 26 January 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.