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 00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asiagh[edit]

Asiagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

I feel that this article should be removed, or at least returned to a previous state -- and maybe locked -- because of its incredibly dubious content. Some examples:

" They were first inhabitants of Scandinavia and they also founded Jutland as their homeland in Europe.^[1] "

" Sihag Jats were in a Scythian tribe called massagetae and lived on the banks of the River Oxus(Amu Darya) along with Her, Bhullar and Dahiya Jat tribes in central asia thousands of years before Christ,than they migrated to northern salt-range Punjab region in India and at the time of Alexander invation in Punjab in 326 B.C. they fought with Alexander The Great and than Asiagh(Sihag) along with Punia,Godara,Saran,Beniwal and Johiya migrated to north Rajasthan region known as Jangladesh and ruled there till 15th century . "

" They were pure Scythian males who migrated from Europe and central Asia to north-western India and conquered many parts of it.They intermingled with pure Aryan females of this area. "

There is also the sub-par English and randomly distributed bold letters. I hope you'll consider getting rid of this disgrace of an article.

Antonbr (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Antonbr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonbr (talk • contribs) 2010/01/19 14:53:19 [reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wow, a mess indeed. The article makes some grandiose claims about the clan, many of which are unverifiable and/or outright false, including the "first inhabitants of Scandinavia" and "founded Jutland as their homeland in Europe" claims brought by the nominator. The only source I found that was remotely reliable was this one, which goes into some history of the Asiaghs that I find interesting, but don't see how it meets notability criteria. The article lists several people who are allegedly members of this clan, 3 of which have Wikipedia articles. One of those three is an alternate spelling, and the other two are questionable based on a quick read. Ultimately, I can't find any indication that this clan is notable - no independent RS coverage of the clan itself or a list of notable people who are members of the clan. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per WP:FRINGE extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. This essay (and it reads more like a badly written essay than an encyclopedia article) makes extraordinary claims with basically no proof. I mean "Jats entered Scandinavia around 500 BCE and their leader was Odin Singh." What?!?!? Seriously, is this WP:MADEUP or do some people actually believe the chief of the Aesir was an Indian settler? Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • well spotted. This is of course "MADEUP", but it is made up by people in the 19th century (you know, people didn't just become stupid in the 1990s when they went online, people have been proudly stupid for centuries, it just has become more evident since absolutely everybody can dump their opinions on Wikipedia). There is a lot of FRINGE material that can still be added to Scythians#Descent_claims. The problem is that we get garbled version of these theories in gotra train wrecks such as this one, and if we want to unravel the history of these ideas, we are on our own to find the sources. --dab (𒁳) 16:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete with prejudice. I would love to say that this is a horrible example of gotra cruft, but sadly it is just an average example, I come across these all the time. It is time somebody addressed this systemic problem with some coordination. After deletion, Arsagalitae may be made a redirect as a bona fide ethnonym found in Pliny's Naturalis Historia. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An older version of the article appears more reasonable but again is practically unverifiable (I looked up some of the listed sources). Google books doesn't return anything substantial besides such circular references. If good reliable sources are located at some later date, a more sober article can be created. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with prejudice. The article is no better or worse than a majority of our gotra/clancruft articles. Nothing really in RS to justify anything in the article, and even if one could be created, WP:TNT would apply. For those interested in doing some further cleaning, Category:Jat clans can serve as a starting point for many similar articles. -SpacemanSpiff 17:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • trying to find any shred of information on "Asiagh", it would appear that it was the name of an obscureRajput clan subjugated by Rao Bika in the 15th century.[1] I doubt they have been heard from since. The speculative connection to Bactria was made by Todd (1829)here, the inexhaustibe excuse for hundreds of horrible gotra articles on Wikipedia.
• as for "Sihag", all I can find is that this is apparently an Indian surname. Allegedly (nobody is verifying this stuff), belonging to the Dahiya gotra. I know without looking that if Dahiya comes up in blue, it will lead to a horrible article. If any of this can be at all verified, these names can become redirects to referenced list entries at List of Jat clans. This is what should probably happen to about 90% of Wikipedia's gotra articles. --dab (𒁳) 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like a hoax, reads like complete bollocks, lacks a single credible source. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - A crappy article is not a reason for deletion. An article with no reliable sources that barely asserts encyclopedic notability is a candidate for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke with fire. There's a vast quantity of Jat-cruft here of which this is simply the tip of the iceberg. Moreschi (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article Asiagh is about an ancient clan and a social group of India and Pakistan. This clan has certain history and historical traditions. We should know what it is. On Wikipedia we do have articles on each plant species and even the imaginary mythological characters and the characters of even games. We are not thinking to delete these articles. The history portion of this article got developed content which requires clean up and reliable references to make it authentic. My logic in favour to retain this article derives from a person who develops cancer in a part of body. The doctor does not kill the man but treats him first and if that part is not treated he removes that part only. Similarly this article needs clean up and not the deletion. Keep. burdak (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We should know what it is" indeed. Therefore, WP:TNT, clear the rambling nonsense off the page and start over, striclty based on WP:RS. You bet we have articles on "characters of even games". You will note that these articles manage to cite their references and don't make up things as they go along. In your cancer simile, the Jat-cruft articles do not have cancer, they are the cancer, and it is high time to get rid of it so the actual article, Jat people, can get back on its feet. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fringe original research lacking clear notability and extant reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep , stubbify, and rewrite. Agreed that a good deal of it does not make much sense, but is anyone saying there was no such group? DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 26 January 2010 (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.