Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jokhio

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. MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jokhio

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

I am questioning its notability. Help in adding citations in this article would be appreciated. Daniel kenneth (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should really look for sources before nominating an article for deletion, Daniel kenneth. See Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - until recently, this was a redirect to Samma (tribe)#Jokhio, but that section was unsourced and removed long ago. I have found some sources about the tribe, such as this, this, this and this, although the coverage provided by each is a bit thin. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best perhaps unless anyone wants to Redirect to the other article for now, the article is at best still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- ArtsRescuer • Talk me 11:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOREASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 19:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete This article is unreferenced and it seems like no one wants to improve this article by adding reliable sources that discuss this tribe in detail. I am starting to think that this article could not be notable. Daniel kenneth (talk) 20:25, 28 May 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.