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. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notezai[edit]

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

I could find a single piece of evidence that this tribe exists. Staglit (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nonnotable or nonexistent tribe. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 22:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable tribe, it certainly exists Seasider91 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above not really a notable tribe. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Keep until a proper search is made, in print as well as online sources.. I found http://notezai.webs.com/ as the first hit in Google, which certainly indicates existence of some group or place of that name. I also find a number of people with that family name, which indicates it might be an extended family or a group--this does not mean it's notable; it means it needs proper searching. Staglit, where exactly did you look, and how did you find time to look if you're patrolling at the rate of, quite literally, two articles a minute -- which you've been doing for several days now. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I search, I found just a few results of people having the last name on Facebook. The site you have found was not anywhere on the first few pages I looked at. Perhaps the results of our searches differ due to past searches, or location? And yes, I look at searches before I flag them. If there is evidence that this is a major tribe, then it should be kept, but I found no evidence of that on my searches. Staglit (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough, if it even exists. Kierzek (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too find evidence that this exists as a personal name, but not as a tribe. It is clear that if it does exist as a tribe then information about the tribe is so hard to come by that there is very little likelihood of its satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The page that DGG links to has every appearance of being a personal web page, which, apart from the page title, does not use the word "Notezai" except as part of the name of the author of the page. The page does not mention any "group or place of that name", and rather than "certainly indicat[ing] existence of some group or place of that name", it appears to merely indicate the existence of a person of the name. In any case, even if such a page did indicate "existence of some group or place of that name", if the best we can do for evidence is such an obscure personal web page, then there is no notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am rather surprised by the number of participants above who have found no evidence of Notezai as a tribe - out of the first twenty GBooks results on the standard search, at least three refer to it as either a tribe or a clan (which can standardly be taken as a close synonym). Having said that, all three seem to be passing references to its participation in the drugs trade - good enough to show existence, but not really as a basis for an article. PWilkinson (talk) 20:11, 24 April 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.