Deletion of 1901 Census of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh

Comment: We should not misapply . This is not so far from the canonical example of a "necessary" statistics table in that very policy, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012. It is of historical and educational value, and is likely to be useful to anyone who needs this information as it represents the data faithfully in a much more readable format
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK)

Comment: but not because the data is wrong (we have many articles about ideas that were once thought correct but are simply wrong). Rather, because . It is reasonable to discuss major national censuses. This isn't; it's one regional component of the 1901 Census of India. By comparison, we have an article about the 2010 United States Census, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue in favor of by-state sub-articles that serve only as stat-table dumping grounds (2010 Texas Census is thankfully red). I wouldn't entirely be opposed to individual articles, such as 1901 Census of India (currently a redirect) on the pre-Independence Indian censuses, citing the aggregate "data" as well as the |reliable modern sources that explain why those numbers are untrustworthy (at best). But that still doesn't justify regional articles like this one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK||WP:RS)

Comment: Of historical importance. This is not about 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: If this census, or part of one, was indeed of historical importance, I'd expect that to be explained and sourced in the article. As it is, though, we only have a bare table of statistics, which is indeed what we are  for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)