The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kakkay Abbasi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

submitted 5 times with no improvement, and the references do not seem to support the content. See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shekhian Mohalla DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, in all fairness, the feedback given was required grammatical fixes for most of those declines. but I'm more concerned it is picked up by a COI group or collective to push their subject. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, have some more patience here. Four bad reviews about grammar and inline citations have derailed the process. The topic appears to me to be real. The problem appears to be the author’s understanding of required sourcing. Grammar and inline sourcing are unimportant concerns. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This tribe, claiming a 500 year history, has no reliable sourcing on the web that I can find. Likely, the information is oral. There is information recorded on unreliable websites, and these are not OK for Wikipedia. I think it will be very difficult to advance this topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, I rejected the draft since at this point it would be best to WP:NUKEANDPAVE. I think it would be best if we just let the draft die by G13, but I won't fret if it dies here. Curbon7 (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep since the main problem with the draft has been the fixable problems of grammar and usage. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NMFD and SmokeyJoe. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this topic area is rife with people attempting to push unsourced or very poorly sourced content in, and letting this float around indefinitely will only make it worse. This isn't a case of incremental improvement, it's based on extremely sketchy source material and, if you know what you're looking at here, it's a pretty blatant attempt at glorification; this sort of thing constantly comes up with these topics (caste upon caste upon caste claim to be related to Rajputs, for instance), and the longer it sits the more it's embellished. A blank page would be a much better starting point than this draft, as there's nothing salvageable here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights.

See:

* Circular reporting

* Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents

* https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/wikipedia-citogenesis-circular-reporting-problem.html

* https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/cdfsnp/wikipedia_sourcing_itself/

* https://xkcd.com/978/

Delete and re-create as a Draft-Stub with the following line: "Kakkay Abbasi are said to be a Sheikh tribe from Ropar. No reliable sources are known."
This may repair some of the harm done by hosting the information collected from unreliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (i.e. WP:TNT), but recreate minus the doubtful sources and unverifiable content. I agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights, and with SmokeyJoe's assessment of the problems and proposed solution (mostly). In this case, the problem of circular reporting is not hypothetical. There is already an instance of it, raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shekhian Mohalla. The article creator and their sockpuppets pointed to this link to bolster the article's claim to validity: [1], and it uses language almost identical to what the creator + sockpuppets had added to the Rupnagar article here: [2]. That said, it is not true that there are no reliable sources; there is some minimal sourcing which shows the existence of this clan and their claim of descent from Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib in Sir Edward Blunt's book. There is also a single entry that acknowledges their existence and claim of descent from the Abbassids in Sir Denzil Ibbetson's book. In accepting this article, I don't think Wikipedia would be doing much more than reflecting what other reliable and independent sources already have. (I'm not dealing with the question of notability at this stage.) But I fully agree that the dubious sources and all unverifiable content should be deleted. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If
    • the minimal sourcing which shows the existence of this clan and their claim of descent from Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib in Sir Edward Blunt's book. &
    • The single entry that acknowledges their existence and claim of descent from the Abbassids in Sir Denzil Ibbetson's book

is real and reliable, then include it on the draft-stub. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, my comment was meant to agree with your proposed solution, but I must confess that I don't know what a "draft-stub" is. Is it just a draft labelled as a stub, that will (if accepted) become a stub article? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kohlrabi Pickle. And I meant to agree back. A "draft-stub" is my neologism for a stub standard in draftspace, which would be well below the the WP:Stub standard for mainspace. I think this draft-stub standard means the topic is defined as something plausible to work on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SmokeyJoe - gotcha, thanks. I assume that means it'll incubate in draftspace until it's ready for mainspace, and that sounds like a sensible next step. I'm doubtful that these sources are enough for the subject to cross the notability threshold, because the coverage in both is insubstantial. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doubtful that this topic will ever get into mainspace, but I think there is a small possibility of a resourceful person finding the elusive reliable sources for something to said about the topic. This is good enough for it to be in draftspace. However, to reiterate, the current version is based on unreliable sources and it not on a path that will get it to mainspace but is instead a danger for misuse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2021 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.