Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasti (tribe)

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. Sandstein 12:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dasti (tribe)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep another tribe mentioned several times historically. This looks like a really good source (1863, British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers)Memo on the Dashtee tribe. Also mentioned in Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan(as part of an alliance fighting against the British, Encyclopaedia of Untouchables Ancient, Medieval and Modern <- also mentions the Nutkani (see deletion discussion below) on the same page. Fraenir (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fraenir: you've done a similar rationale at the AfD for the Nutkani article in the last hour or so. For the record, again, by long-standing consensus British Raj sources are not reliable, and nor are books published by Gyan. That pretty much covers your entire list here. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: - To further my education, do you have a link to a relevant discussion on why British Raj sources are not reliable, and Gyan in particular as well? I'd like to see where consensus was formed, and why. I don't necessarily doubt you, I just want to learn something new, and my attempts at searching for this discussion have so far failed. Fieari (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fieari: you'll find some notes via this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: - Thanks! That makes a lot of sense, particularly with Gyan (being a circular reference). With the British Raj, however, the idea seems to be that the idiots of that period made shit up to justify their rule (and is therefor unreliable). Would it be fair to say that they would be acceptable for providing notability towards an idea that is false or non-standard? In terms of this article, for instance, could British Raj sources be used to make an article that said something to the paraphrased effect of "Dasti is a made up fake tribe created by the British Raj in order to justify their imperialism." The reason I ask is that if these British Raj sources are mentioning this thing, it might be useful to a student doing research to find a Wikipedia article explaining why the thing is BS. Fieari (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't do it to "justify their rule" per se. It was far more complex and indeed they saw it as a way to better understand the native people of their colonies. The Victorian era, in particular, was one of remarkable inquisitiveness. Beyond that, I think we're drifting too far away from relevant discussion here. And whether something is sufficiently notable to justify an article - such as one on a "false or non-standard" idea or even a fake or hoax- is entirely related to WP:GNG. I did it for Census of India prior to independence but we already have articles for Scientific racism etc and would have to beware of synthesising sources for the issue you suggest. - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you claiming this source cited earlier is "unreliable" [1]? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding your dismissal of British Raj sources - this seems to suggest such a sweeping dismissal is unfounded: "Early in the 19th century the British set about gathering and organizing information on the whole of India, which they eventually published in the form of district gazetteers. The district gazetteer series for Baluchistan (1906-08) comprises eight volumes". ... "The Baluchistan series is an extraordinary compendium of information, and ranks among the best of all the Indian gazetteers (Scholberg, p. 49) as well as other literature of the same type". [2] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Dashti is also wikilinked to Rind (Baloch tribe) ("Dashti or Dasti is another name for the Rind (tribe), a Baloch tribe of Baluchistan"). Though there is no content in the Rind article mentioning this. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my dismissal; it is consensus. I know of Scholberg's bibliographic efforts but he is erring to link the early 19C information gathering to that which appeared in the gazetteers. The gazetteers were a response to the Indian rebellion of 1857, after which the British authorities - who were indeed now the Raj rather than the East India Company - determined that the best way for a civil service of ca. 800 people to control a nation of many millions was to "know thy enemy" (so to speak). They may have taken some information from the writings of early amateurs, such as James Tod, but those amateurs were also being heavily criticised by that time. It is true that modern academics do cite Raj works for certain points but that doesn't contradict our position: the Raj works are primary sources for practical purposes, and we're ok to accept mention of them where reliable modern sources have reviewed and commented upon the things. I can't comment on the relative status of the Baluchistan gazetteers vs all of the others, nor on whether Scholberg was placing any particular emphasis on how they covered communities compared to, say, how they covered the terrain or the economy or the history. Here's what Richard Carnac Temple wrote (and he'd said more or less the same thing several times previously because it formed a part of official policy): He wrote in 1914:

The practices and beliefs included under the general head of Folk-lore make up the daily life of the natives of our great dependency, control their feelings, and underlie many of their actions. We foreigners cannot hope to understand them rightly unless we deeply study them, and it must be remembered that close acquaintance and a right understanding begets sympathy, and sympathy begets good government.

Is this any help re: your query? - Sitush (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. I see no evidence for a legitimate "consensus", (your) user pages are not consensus and do not have to stand up to OR examinations, you have not explained why you dismissed the Tapper source (which at the very least disproved the hoax allegation), and your quote seems bizarre and contradictory in this context (you claiming unreliability, but the quote explaining why accurate information was necessary and desirable for good governance). The issue is whether this tribal group is notable enough for an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you obviously haven't read the information properly. For example, I see no relevant mention of hoax in this discussion (it was a side-issue) and my user pages have links to consensus discussions, as is confirmed pretty much every week (eg: a thread on Bishonen's talk page from this last weeked). I can't help you if you do not read what is offered. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any useful mentions in reliable sources. We do have articles about people who bear the name and those should probably be added to the Dasti dab page. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can discover, they are a minor Baloch tribe, a part of its Rind subdivision. However, given that even the Rind article is little more than a stub, and the Baloch article barely acceptable, I don't see enough notability for a separate article yet. Perhaps a redirect to Baloch people would be correct, based on sources (but not based on current content of the Balloch article - which does its best to not contain such content). I'm concerned that there is past record of deleting content that details Baloch tribes - I don't know if this is due to prejudice against the sources that list them, or against the fact that they exist. Deleted articles include "History of the Baloch people"; "Baloch tribes"; and "List of Baloch tribes". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2016 (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.