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. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sajanke[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I've looked for sources on and off for years now and never got anywhere. The article has been tagged since at least 2012 and was previously mass-nominated for deletion here. Sitush (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Consider the three volume set: Ibbetson, Denzil, and H. A. Rose. A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. Patiala: Languages Department Punjab (1883). available on archive.org. Volume 2 has entries on the Chaddrar on page 145 which references Chhadhar on [page 158] and is probably a reference to the Chadhar tribe, of which this article says the Sajanke are a clan. That page (158) lists 8 chief tribes of the Chhadhar (Rajokes, Kamokes, Jappas, Luns, Pajikes, Deokes, Ballankes, and Sajokes); one of which is the Sajokes, possibly referring to this clan. Sajanke would show up on [page 346 (or 401 if spelled Shajanke, for what it is worth) of volume 3], and doesn't appear there.

A second possible source is Gazetteers of different Punjab districts, particularly: Gazetteer of the Jhanq District. Punjab Government Press, 1884, where we can read about the Chaddhars on [page 64]. Here, four subfamilies (Jappas, Rajokes, Sajankes, and Kangars) are mentioned, and in which the Jappas and Kangars are mentioned as having representation of a zaildar or feudal tax collector in the Raj (note: the book is from 1884).

So, while this group certainly exists, and while it may be a common surname in some area, I don't see any good grounds for a claim to notability, nor any use in keeping it as a disambiguation for people that have this surname (as there are currently none with articles that I can find). That said, If the Chadhar or Chhadhar article existed (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chadhar), I would !vote redirect to there.

I also note that Sitush's contribution to the Chadhar AfD seems very level headed, and my feelings are that while a British Raj source may not be unreliable, it would need to be put in context if used as a source. And in this case, passing mention by a moderately reliable source at best is not sufficient. In my opinion, this article does not meet GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Smmurphy's comments. I can't really add significantly to that excellent summary, but I'm adding my !vote to demonstrate that it's not just a consensus of one. --Slashme (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2017 (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.