m →Automatic delete candidates: deprodded 1 from 27th |
→Ongoing deletion debates: rm closed discussions |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jadeja royal family tree}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jadeja royal family tree}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sree Pushpaka Seva Sangham}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sree Pushpaka Seva Sangham}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Jithesh (2nd nomination)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurvinder Jagdev}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakshman Madurasinghe}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakshman Madurasinghe}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Modern Day Rajputs}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Modern Day Rajputs}} |
Revision as of 11:30, 30 October 2006
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to India. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|India|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to India. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
Purge page cache | watch |
Purge page cache |
Automatic delete candidates
- (PROD-tagged) pages, culled from Category:Proposed deletion
Dated: October 30th, 2006
Dated: October 29th, 2006
Dated: October 28th, 2006
Dated: October 26, 2006
Dated: October 25, 2006
Ongoing deletion debates
- 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. Punkmorten 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Filmfare's List of Top Ten Actresses
The article purports to be dedicated to a list of top actresses published by an Indian film magazine since 2003. However, the article doesn't give any of the lists, but consists of a lead para arguing that Rani Mukerji is the top actress in Bollywood, followed by slighting mentions of other actresses. As it stands, the article is biased, and an attack on the other actresses and should be deleted for that reason. (The creator of the article has been linking this article to other actress pages, as a subtle attack on their standing vis-a-vis Rani.) However, even if the article were what the title would lead one to expect, a list of the ten winners for each year, it would still be trivial and non-notable. Newspapers and magazines publish lists of favorites all the time, none of which rate WP articles. Nobel Prize winners yes, Filmfare magazine, no. Zora 06:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Firstly, Filmfare's List of Top Ten Actresses is not notable enough (unlike Filmfare Awards). Secondly, If the article includes the complete list, it will be a copyvio. From the Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service case: "In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data.". The names or the list of the actresses are not copyright by Filmfare, but the creative choices Filmfare made in producing a ranking are copyrightable by them. The ranking is a creative invention of theirs—they did not simply publish the names of schools as in a directory. If the entire list is published, it won't be re-arranged and the title already indicates that the list belongs to Filmfare. It is not legal to take their list—published in their commercial magazine and website—and simply publish it on Wikipedia under GFDL. utcursch | talk 08:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article does not actually do that. Read it. You won't find a list of ten people in it. The problem with the article is not that it violates copyright, but that it appears to be an original analysis of why various actresses have held the positions on the list that they have, over the years. This article would be acceptable if such an analysis could be sourced, but from reading it, and seeing the personal bias of the author that is obvious from the content of the article, I strongly suspect that this analysis is a new analysis, being constructed firsthand by a Wikipedia editor directly in Wikipedia in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. The way to rescue this article would be to rewrite it from any sources that exist, if they exist. (I haven't looked.) Uncle G 12:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Filmfare Magazine is a gossip magazine and really not notable enough. Also, it only includes a facet of Indian Cinema, namely the one based in Mumbai. What about the other industries? Besides the copyvio issue, also, we had to accept every regional list from every country and every gossip magazine and Wikipedia isn't about gossip, I think. --Plumcouch Talk2Me 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you attacking the NO.1 If next year, someone else is No.1, we will talk about her too. What's wrong with the list when I didn't or you didn't make it but a reputed Filmfare Magazine did so. It's not just one mag but all five big mags have named Rani the top actress of 2004 and 2005. It's not her fault. It's a great accomplishment. As for the rest, other actresses feel proud to be on this list and thus, this article should not be deleted. User:shez_15 06:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- -- Lost(talk) 06:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do NOT DeleteIt has clearly been a worth while aricle on wikipedia and it is not creating any contreversy or havoc, so therefore it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Dracula (talk • contribs)
- Delete POV essay + nonnotable list Bwithh 13:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per, among other guidelines, WP:NOR. -- Kicking222 14:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per UncleG's points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
- Delete non-notable fan/listcruft. Elomis 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete Filmfare is widely considered the "standard" for film-news/interviews/views in India. Of course, I am not talking about regional cinema. I have edited the article to reflect Hindi cinema. Another point I want to make is, remove all the 'original research' but keep the list. Unless it is copy-vio... though I don't see why it is. Finally Zora: If Bankable star and Sexiest Man Alive are notable, despite the fact that they are "regional" to USA, and do not consider Indian/Chinese/Bhojpuri superstars, why not Femina's list? Anagha 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are over a million articles in WP and some of them are junk that should not be imitated. Bankable star and Sexiest man alive should be eliminated too, as non-notable ephemera. As for Filmfare being "the standard" -- that's your personal opinion. The only metrics that can be defended are objective -- circulation figures, in the case of print media, and Alexa rankings, in the case of websites. How does Filmfare stand by those measures, and how does it stand vis-a-vis its rivals?
- Any real information in the article, as opposed to Rani-glorification, could easily be folded into the article on Filmfare magazine. Title should probably be changed, to Filmfare (magazine) to make it clear that it's a magazine. Right now the article is stubby. Just add a section about the magazine's lists of the bests, and link to the magazine's website if that gives the lists. Hmmmm ... do we have articles on the top Indian film magazines and websites? With circulation and Alexa figures? That might actually be useful. Then all the various polls and such would have proper homes. Zora 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's frustrating to state the obvious Zora. But have it your way. Filmfare with a circulation of 1.47 lakh and a readership of 44.9 lakh, enjoys the second largest readership among all English magazines in India and is the largest film magazine. Here's the link: [1] And before you question Economic Times's credentials The Economic Times, started in 1961, is India's largest and among the world's top three English business dailies. The Economic Times is published simultaneously from seven cities across India, has a circulation of 400,000 copies, and is read by over 1 million people every day. here's the link: [2] Anagha 11:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, let's put that in the Filmfare article. I still think any material re magazine polls, contests, lists, etc. belongs in the magazine article, not in a separate article. Zora 12:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay so are you gonna put up deletion notices on bankable star, sexiest man alive et al as well or should we not touch that till people you don't like go there? And what about List of Miss Universe winners, List of Miss World hosts and invited artists and List of Academy Award winning films and suchlike? Isn't there a policy decision on these? Why do you decide what's "notable" and what's not? Anagha 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, let's put that in the Filmfare article. I still think any material re magazine polls, contests, lists, etc. belongs in the magazine article, not in a separate article. Zora 12:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's frustrating to state the obvious Zora. But have it your way. Filmfare with a circulation of 1.47 lakh and a readership of 44.9 lakh, enjoys the second largest readership among all English magazines in India and is the largest film magazine. Here's the link: [1] And before you question Economic Times's credentials The Economic Times, started in 1961, is India's largest and among the world's top three English business dailies. The Economic Times is published simultaneously from seven cities across India, has a circulation of 400,000 copies, and is read by over 1 million people every day. here's the link: [2] Anagha 11:05, 2 November 2006 (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.
- 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. DS 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Indian paintings
Listcruft created by a single-purpose account to accomodate Devajyoti Ray's In Despair; should be replaced by the category Category:Indian paintings. Firstly, the title is subjective (no wonder it has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} and {{npov}}). Secondly, the article has been merged into Indian painting. None of the links to the listed paintings actually work. Delete. utcursch | talk 08:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 08:48, 29 October 2006 (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.
- 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. DS 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Despair
Alleged cult Indian painting. Created by a single-purpose account; image is tagged {{GFDL-self}}; etc. Is this an advert or just a few newbie errors in creating an OK article? -- RHaworth 10:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – only one piece of verifiable evidence, not even cited on the article. Also created the Famous Indian paintings for which to add it. Intentional self-promo. Bubba hotep 12:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hopeless blatant spam (criterion G11). It's bad enough creating an article about yourslef, but individual paintings? No way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete are we really debating this? ad for his art! 4.18GB 13:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete — obvious spam -- lucasbfr talk 16:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - That was art? I have seen better paintings by Fluffy the Office Max copy cat. Still one mans trash is... nevermind. Obvious self-promotion. Both thumbs down. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- btw, on further browsing I noticed the pseudorealism article says something to the effect that this new age in art started in 1974. Coincidence it is the year of this artists birth? I think not... --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Pseudorealism and Pseudorealism in Indian Art. Managed to get top ranks by his campaign here. Pavel Vozenilek 20:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reference to where this painting can be seen, whether it has won any awards, etc. NawlinWiki 21:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- D-l33t Not a bad painting, but no earthly reason for an article.
- Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable enough. utcursch | talk 08:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 08:38, 29 October 2006 (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.
- 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 - and Ray isn't notable either. DS 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudorealism in Indian Art
[Nomination; ed. DB] delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devajyoti Ray 4.18GB 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Devajyoti Ray is notable but this is probably cruft.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Devajyoti Ray might be notable enough to deserve an article, but this is not. Merge any salvagable content to Devajyoti Ray. utcursch | talk 08:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. See Devajyoti Ray AfD discussion for details. Pavel Vozenilek 03:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources whatsoever, no evidence of WP:Notability. The article mentions the work of only a single individual . Agree there's no reason not to simply fold the discussion into the Devajyoti Ray article. --Shirahadasha 03:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as per Utcursch - move anything not fancruft to Devajyoti Ray. Elomis 21:34, 30 October 2006 (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.
- 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 (once the sockpuppets and suspected sockpuppets are discounted). DS 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Devajyoti Ray
speedy delete - no notability and i speculate this was created by the subject of the article (based on his creation of articles on his own artwork). give me a break! 4.18GB 13:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam. No particular claims of notability, and creator's contributions seem to consist of spamming his name and website across every article they can think of. Update: see also In Despair. Pseudorealism seems to be related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Dont assign motives. He has been covered in many mainstream articles.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 20:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN, spam, astroturfing. Pavel Vozenilek 20:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pseudorealism is another spam page to increase rank of website obviously operated by Devajyoti Ray. I must say that the old days of naive spammers are over - this guy was able to grab top ranks for generic word with just three stubs here. Pavel Vozenilek 20:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Pseudorealism in Indian Art. He modestly placed himself into Painting, Indian art and several lists. I predict one day he will be rich and famous and Wikipedia worth. Pavel Vozenilek 20:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pseudorealism is another spam page to increase rank of website obviously operated by Devajyoti Ray. I must say that the old days of naive spammers are over - this guy was able to grab top ranks for generic word with just three stubs here. Pavel Vozenilek 20:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Did you even look at the article? Notability has been established. Who cares whether he spammed, he still is notable.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it hasn't been unqeuivocally established. The links that you added aren't to non-trivial published works. The "bengali school" article just gives a name check as part of a laundry list of names, the page in The Hindu simply advertises the opening times for an art exhibition, and in fact was earlier removed from the article here. Uncle G 21:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Its not the works that this AFD is on, its the artist, who is notableBakaman Bakatalk 23:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - well that's exactly what we are debating, if he is notable. its obvious these 3 articles he created were in self promotion4.18GB 23:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be confused about how notability is determined and what published works we deal with in the context of AFD. Please read our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. The relevant published works are the ones cited in the article (and any further ones that anyone can find), and as I pointed out, at least two of them don't pass the non-triviality threshold. Uncle G 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Why are you assuming bad faith (I'm asking this at 4.1GB)? It may as well be fancruft. Anyway, he has been noted in The Tribune India and The Telegraph Calcutta as well as the Hindu. I dont know/care if his work is notable, but trhe artist definitely is.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Its not the works that this AFD is on, its the artist, who is notableBakaman Bakatalk 23:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it hasn't been unqeuivocally established. The links that you added aren't to non-trivial published works. The "bengali school" article just gives a name check as part of a laundry list of names, the page in The Hindu simply advertises the opening times for an art exhibition, and in fact was earlier removed from the article here. Uncle G 21:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep- Valuable information about an upcoming Indian Artist.he is notable enough. Nileena joseph 05:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He had some exhibitions to his credit. But, he has not done anything that should get him article on Wikipedia. Also note that most of the Google results are about Devajyoti Ray, a Karnataka IAS/IPS officer, who is SP of Chamarajnagar. The newspapers items cited or provided as external links are annoucements of exhibitions, which tend to declare article as "gifted", "remarkable" etc. utcursch | talk 09:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep- Google search shows not just minor articles or self created articles by the artist, but articles about his paintings in The Telegraph, The Tribune, 21stcenturyindianart.com and Soulstirrings.com. Among the articles on the artist, only a handful are about his work as an IPS officer. The article should be brought back. it is wrong to delete it.
- 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.
- 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. Luna Santin 08:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don 2
I tried searching the net but never came across any news article which talks about sequel to Don; the chase begins...Except for this gentleman's remark that [3] Don2 is a possiblity...
Since there are no confirmed reports and only rumors.. There is no information about this movie on news channels / newspapers / internet.
I think that this article should be deleted. IndianCow Talk 13:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll second that, Since Don is released just last week, news of Don 2 with exactly same cast(Except for big B) sounds fake to me!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.192.40.66 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. utcursch | talk 09:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - In an official interview with director Farhan Akhtar himself, the director of Don, he has confirmed he has no intentions of making a sequel to the film. Here is a link to the article ----> [4]. Therefore, the article's deletion is a must. -- Shammy89 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SRK has said himself that he is in tlaks of making don 2 and is even thinking of producing it himself !!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.139.230 (talk • contribs) on 06:09, October 30, 2006 .
- Dear 88.109.139.230 please provide [citation needed]IndianCow Talk 09:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Farhan Akhtar said that although he has no intentions of making a sequel, it's not yet final. He will do it after seeing the success of this current film and public demand.
- 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.
- 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 - no real argument put forward that it is anything but crystal-ballery. Yomanganitalk 13:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Krrish 2
Film has not been officially announced, director has confirmed that project may be scrapped, therefore, I propose this article deleted. Visual planet 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I cant find much of an argument to keep it around. Article has almost no content and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Chris Kreider 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If it's not out yet and not confirmed, then what's the point of an article? Wiki is an encyclopedia for facts, not speculation (unless it's some theory or other on a topic of fact).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.141.109 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - Per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The Krrish page trivia section mentions the possibility of a followup movie. Since this is all the information currently listed on the page under debate, I agree with the above posts. -bobby 18:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not for speculation. Hello32020 19:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Well, I think adding notice saying that movie is not official announced yet, will be great. (the notice is already added) and moreover, Rakesh Roshan has told that he might make the movie. So, all these factors makes this article not be deleted yet. I think we should wait for some more news. User:Bunty02, time 15:46 (IST).
- Hey, Hang on! the template {{ future film }} says that "THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT FUTURE OR EXPECTED FILMS". So, what's the matter. Krrish 2 is expected film, isn't it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunty02 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The use of template could be justified if an official announcement had been made that there will be a sequel and it will be title "Krrish 2". There have been speculations about the sequel, but there have been no announcements yet, and there is no reason to believe that the sequel will be titled "Krrish 2". See the note at Category:Upcoming films. The template and category for the films that are "not released as of yet, but are factually planned to be filmed/released in the near future". Krrish 2 doesn't satisfy this criteria. Also have a look at Wikipedia:Current and future event templates#Future_events utcursch | talk 09:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nobleeagle has added enough to cement notability.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If any reliable link to the the announcement of sequel and it being called "Krrish 2" is provided, I'll change my vote to keep. utcursch | talk 09:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Rakesh has already specified that he might scrap the whole project and make a movie based on the other script he is working on if the script for the sequel to Krrish doesn't materialize. Until further information surfaces, why should we keep this page? The film hasn't been confirmed yet, therefore, I support its deletion --Shammy89 14:19, 29 October 2006 (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.
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soni (Indian family name)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a phonebook. Already deleted once via WP:PROD but quickly recreated. Maybe meant to be a dab page but has no links. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Directory/Dicdef type article, non-notable. Can't this be speedy? --The Way 05:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per CSD A1 and possibly A7. No possible improvement. Cheers -- Imoeng 06:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure what the standards are here but there is an entire category tree devoted to surnames, Category:Surnames, which includes Category:Indian family names. But most of them have some content as opposed to this one so it probably is borderline speedy. Dictdefs are specifically not speedy criteria though - see the first bullet point at WP:CSD#Non-criteria. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the articles in Category:Surnames are disambig pages or about famous/notable families (eg. Baca Family of New Mexico or Auerbach (family)). Most of the pages in Category:Indian family names are about casetes or gotras. Probably, there are some deletion-worthy articles as well -- they should go. utcursch | talk 12:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Important article. And I have also added more matter on the article. I intend to add still more, so that the article doesn't remain a stub. Jagat Soni 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Jagat Soni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
- Delete We generally don't have an article on each name in existence in the world, although we have articles on notable individuals WITH that name. See: Mudd. Edison 16:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If I read this correctly it is the Indian equivalent of "smith". Now smith as a name isn't listed in WIkipedia so neither should soni, but, but smith as an occupation is! --Mike 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, assuming that no famous person has this name. Redirect if someone does. -Amarkov babble 23:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ambika Soni per Amarkov Doctor Bruno 17:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably you didn't notice this, but the article is not located at Soni (which is already a disambig page). The article is located at Soni (Indian family name). Therefore, a redirect to Ambika Soni is not justified. utcursch | talk 09:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a telephone directoryJoshygeorge 07:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, Indian name cruft. This type of article is unfortunately very common. Punkmorten 09:08, 28 October 2006 (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.
- 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 keep; tagged for spam clean-up. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NIIT
Reads like advertising copy or extreme fancruft. --Saganaki- 06:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Article needs to be rewritten/reorganised but definately not deleted. IrfanAli (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It easily meets WP:CORP by the level of media coverage (try Google News). --Mereda 08:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you place some of these in the article? This prevents having this discussion again in the future. ColourBurst 16:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep but tag for improvement. It definitely seems notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite and Keep notable indian corp. Has a revenue of 80 million dollars, and is listed on the bombay stock exchange. Most indian cities have an niit training centre as well. Systematic bias --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 10:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mereda - notable company. -- Lost(talk) 11:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clean-up/Rewrite. utcursch | talk 12:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite and Keep Notable Institute Doctor Bruno 12:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep-Famous educational institute.Nileena joseph 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and Speedy Keep. Notable and popular organisation. Meets the incusion criteria. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep.notable institute.Devapriya 17:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable. JeremyStein 17:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable. It is a listed company on the BSE. -- Ganeshk (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2006 (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.
- 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. W.marsh 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abhishek Krishnan
Delete. There are no sources to verify the claims made in this article. A Google search for the name brings about 180 results (65 "unique"), and none seem to be relevant to the article, or at least the current incarnation of it. It was orginally about a gay-rights activist in Bangalore, and when the prod tag was removed he became a musician. ... discospinster talk 18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - With article creation date of today, and several edits by the creating editor, none of which add sources or do anything to dispute the AFD, I think it should go. That being said, if the editor adds anything to verify the claims, I.E. being in the magazine or another source, I would be forced to retrat my Delete nomination. Chris Kreider 18:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 05:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let us wait for sometime and see whether the editor gives any source Doctor Bruno 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced article. Google finds no other mention of the collaboration with Zoot Sims claimed in the second paragraph. Kavadi carrier 08:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete + Comment reply to nominator - What an amazing transformation fom gay-rights activist to musician. Multitasking.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:20, 5 November 2006 (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.
- 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 as OR. --Coredesat 06:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu Influence
User:Maleabroad has a history of creating unreferenced unsourced POV articles full of strange assertions such as Brahmin Influence on Other Religions and Brahmin contribution to Buddhism which have both been previously deleted, and is a POV Fork. Numerous better and well researched articles exist to cover the same material such as History of Hinduism and links therefrom etc. and on Portal:Hinduism.--Tigeroo 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - A topic that controversial with NO sources has to be POV. Chris Kreider 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 20:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Totallly unreferenced. Abraham was born in Ur(Iraq). Solomon didn't bring any jews to india, they came to trade with india arouund 1AD. Well i can go on and on . --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 20:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Because the subject matter is not really clear, it is impossible to improve the quality. Cheers -- Imoeng 20:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a weekly magazine for writing fiction. Doctor Bruno 20:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Speedy Delete- I think this article is a threat to communal harmony.Good model of clumsy baseless writing. Delete it as early as possible.Nileena joseph 02:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:OR. utcursch | talk 03:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it does have a source. It is not a "threat to communal harmony".Bakaman Bakatalk 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sounds like a personal essay; it's all over the place. BhaiSaab talk 05:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Non notable,promoting personal views and some fringe ideology from India TerryJ-Ho 12:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - not unlike what you said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hindu . Bakaman Bakatalk 01:35, 28 October 2006 (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.
- 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. The lack of verifiability, reliable sources, and unencyclopedic nature of unannotated list of names were the key points brought up. --MCB 05:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jadeja royal family tree
This article is a family tree of a family with questionable notability. It is a contested prod, and the user who removed the prod template wrote in the edit summary: "deprod structured list of notable people". It is unreferenced, has never been properly wikified and has contained very little context since it was created (it currently has none whatsoever). Khatru2 00:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Questioned notablity, questioned article, no sources, non-attractive, and in all honesty it is just a list of names of people whom most of us don't know about, However if we can have some strong external links and referances and a cleaner article Keep but for now Delete.--†hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa Talk to Me 02:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — The only relevant hit I find goes back to Wikipedia... -- lucasbfr talk 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A1, A3, A7, or WP:SNOW. No context, very little content, and the family tree (kinda) of a barely notable clan of india. --Daniel Olsen 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You want to speedy delete this family tree of a non-notable clan which merely "ruled as kings and princes, dominating much of Kathiawar and Kutch in the present-day Indian state of Gujarat for several centuries" before anyone has a chance to dig out the context from the edit history, or the reference for the current version? Kappa 04:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverified, questionable notability, and borders on patent nonsense and indiscriminate collection of information. 129.98.212.67 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The last entry, 168, Jam Raval, was the founder in 1540 of the princely state of Nawanagar, and is mentioned in that article, and is confirmed on a number of web sites, including numismatic. #147 the Ninth Century Jam Lakhaji (Lakho Ghuraro) and his son #148, Jam Unnadji, are discussed, for example, in the history of Kutch at [5]. The liniage is certainly notable. There are notable people along it. It does need work and explication. It would be nice to have proper references, the author indicated that his source was Kutch deshno itihash by Aatmaram Keshavji Dwivedi. Printed from "Nirnay sagar" Mumbai Samvat 1932; shake 1798. With my limited library and not speaking Hindi, I haven't been able to verify its existance. But the book The coinage of Kutch by Richard K Bright (1975), may provide additional verification. I have requested it on interlibrary loan. Bejnar 04:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete First of all, and I may be wrong about this, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be any sort of genealogical guide. Second of all, the 'tree' isn't really a tree, doesn't even seem to show marriage and the like. Third of all, none of the names offer links to articles or any context whatsoever. The 'article,' if you can call it that, isn't the least bit wikified. No explanation of relevance, no sources. --The Way 05:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Point One. This article is not a genealogical guide. It is primarily a list of rulers, although it does have a genealogical component just as does the list of the rulers of the United Kingdom. Bejnar 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Point Two. This is not a tree, despite the label. One needs to look at what it is, not what one thinks the label suggests it to be. This article needs work and constructive criticism. But its notability should be above challange.
- Comment Point Three. This clearly needs work. However, when The Waywrote his comment the article did state its relevance at the beginning, as per Kappa above. That edit was at 04:36, 25 October 2006. Yes the article is not properly linked. It does need work as does most of the history of Kutch. That is not a reason to delete, it is a reason to pitch in and help. !Bejnar 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Maybe it needs to separate fact from fiction? It says the family was descended from Brahma. T REXspeak 10:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are at least a couple of ways to look at you comment. We should delete all fiction from the Wikipedia, or legendary ancestors require deletion, or as an anti-religious statement that decent from the creator, Brahma, must be fiction? Regardless, as argument for deletion, it would require deletion of the Japanese imperial family who are decended from the sun god. Rationally the need to separate fact from fiction is not a reason to delete entire articles. It may be a reason to work as an editor on an article. Bejnar 20:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I meant it should probably be said that mythology says that they are descended from Brahma. The way it looks now is as if it is absolute fact. Legendary ancestors do not require deletion if they are verified as being legendary but if they are passed as legendary then that is confusing to the reader. Even so I doubt that Brahma is considered part of the Jadeja royal family in the same way as Queen Victoria is not considered part of many royal families in Europe except for the British royal family. They both had descendants in many royal families. T REXspeak 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In addition to what Bejnar said, #169 Hardholji appears to have become the first king of Dhrol in around the same era. So this may make some sense if someone with knowledge of the subject bothered to seperate fact and fiction and create a proper article out of this. Tintin (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have moved this article to List of members of the Jadeja royal family to better reflect that it is a list and not a tree. I've also cleaned it up a bit. Some others here have apparently found some sources and additional information about these people, which should be added to the article. I'd say keep an list about a royal family in a part of the world that many Wikipedia editors know little about. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ONUnicorn. Per WP:BIAS, Gujarati royals are as worthy of note as British royals. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do point me to a few articles about British royals which are as terrible as this article. Tintin (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's somewhat easier to research British royals than Gujarati royals, especially for English speakers with internet access. This is one source of systemic bias. It isn't surprising that our English royal articles are better. Still, the subject is notable, the content verifiable, and this text, even if it is poor now, contains some information, and may be helpful to someone who wants to improve it. Not worthy of deletion IMO.- Smerdis of Tlön 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm reconsidering my support for deletion... however, there are still significant problems with the article. First of all, it's just a list of names and the little blurb doesn't supply anywhere near enough context. The names certainly ALL need to be accompanied by the years in which that person rules. Also, any names which have articles of their own should link to that person's page. More context, years of leadership and article links... if it had these I'd support keeping it, especially because of Wikipedia's drive to rid itself of systemic bias. --The Way 18:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless it improves drastically. A list of a few names is no encyclopaedia article. Tintin (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can anyone verify this list? Are there any sources saying that Brahma (god) and Atri are members of this family? Ones in English would be most helpful, unless someone could translate them. T REXspeak 20:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete absolutely zero context -- ßottesiηi (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am not able to see any Tree. There is only one poorly sourced list with no time span or other details. Doctor Bruno 02:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should delete all articles which are lists, not trees? Kappa 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note what I have voted for other lists. A list is a list is a list and a tree is a tree is a tree. If you have an article titled list, it should be a list and if you have a article titled tree it should be a tree. Any how the list is poorly sourced Doctor Bruno
- So we should delete all articles which are lists, not trees? Kappa 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. I wonder those who've voted keep know who Vishnu, Brahma and others mentioned in the list are! utcursch | talk 11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keepis wikipedia based on evidence or prejudice? There are many opinions but looking at the evidence it points to keeping. --Mike 10:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepI had a another look back and at one point the list was much better: [6] If you don't like the content why aren't people asking for it to be improved? As far as having an article the Gujarati they seem to have their own language Gujarati_language & literature, I think there is potentially a good article here and when the author is clearly struggling we should be spending more time helping and less time trying to delete it! --Mike 12:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Merge I knew there was something odd about this call for delete - I've tracked it back. The article is a link from Jadeja and in the earlier form as [7] it would make a very good addition to that article. I can see no debate there to suggest it was ousted from that page so why are we debating this? --Mike 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- No external source or links are provided to verify the article. Nileena joseph 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Doctor Bruno 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect until someone can find a reference which allows an adequate explanation of what this is and where it comes from. Kappa 01:29, 2 November 2006 (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.
- 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 speedy delete per WP:ORG/WP:BIO. --Coredesat 07:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sree Pushpaka Seva Sangham
Non-notable organisation & prod notice removed without comment. 3 google hits other than Wikipedia. A linked article on Pushpakadhwani, apparently a minor publication, was deleted recently as an expired prod. Mereda 07:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Also delete Pushpaka Seva Sangham (redirect). utcursch | talk 11:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent sources or verification to pass WP:ORG.19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Pushpaka Brahmin Doctor Bruno 02:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Doctor Bruno 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, no notability asserted, so tagged. Failing this, delete as unsourced and likely non-notable. Sandstein 23:06, 30 October 2006 (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.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
- 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. In this case consensus to delete is clear. Similar articles by the same nominator have been kept as consensus was not as clear. --Ezeu 19:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of Famous Modern Day Rajputs
Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.
The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list. 7 On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list. The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing for a long time, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV.
Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[8]. Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not.
Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment I am not able to understand why this is not verifiable. Doctor Bruno 13:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Rajput is a martial caste. Nearly all of these people are in the government or the army. Its either a harmless list or caste based categories (which sadly to say have already been created).Bakaman Bakatalk 16:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for deletion is not "Rajputs are not notable". The reason is: Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc. utcursch | talk 03:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Rajputs - per utcursh's logic.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Delete this one as listcruft, but categorize this list as Category:Famous Rajputs or Category:Rajput people. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 17:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:
- List of Scientologists
- List of famous left-handed people
- List of English people
- List of Iranians
- List of Hispanics
- List of Scientologists
- List of famous left-handed people
- List of English people
- List of Iranians
- List of Hispanics
- List of English people
- List of Scots
- List of Welsh people
- List of Northern Ireland people
- List of Cornish people
- List of Black Britons
- List of British Asians
- List of British Jews
--Sbei78 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.
- List of English people (not cited)
- List of Scots (not cited)
- List of Welsh people (not cited)
- List of British Asians (not cited)
- List of Northern Ireland people (not cited)
--Sbei78 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not always consistent; the existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. Moreover, verifiability is very important. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it verifiability is very important for List of English people (not cited) List of Scots (not cited) List of British Asians (not cited) List of Northern Ireland people (not cited) Then why they are not AFDed ??? If some one is very particular and wants reference to say that Abdul Kalam us Muslim and Manmohan Singh Siks, he/she should get all those articles for AFD and not just India related articles alone. Why the above lists are not listed under Articles for deletion ???. Can some one who is very particular about Verifiability explain this bias Doctor Bruno 08:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that your analogy is flawed. List of Northern Ireland people, List of English people or List of Scots is more like List of Indians. A list of Famous Bhumihars or List of famous Nairs is more like Famous Middle-Class Americians or List of famous Rednecks. If you need to verify the lists that you've mentioned, you are welcome to put {{fact}} tags (or even move them to deletion, if you are very sure that those lists are unverifiable) -- the burden of evidence falls on the contributors. Please don't complain of systemic bias here. This AFD nomination was by an Indian editor (me), who has not got enough expertise on subjects like Scots and English people. By the way, there have been discussions on whether Abdul Kalam is a Muslim or not (please see respective talk page). utcursch | talk 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not some one who wants this article to be deleted. If that be the case I will definitely bring an AFD. In my opinion those lists as well as these list are verifiable. I am not comprehending your analogy. As far as I know List of French people and List of Japanese are like List of Indians (Country) Where as List of Northern Ireland people or List of Scots are like List of Rajputs or List of Pandits etc. If you are keeping one, keep every thing. If you are deleting one delete every thing Doctor Bruno 14:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that your analogy is flawed. List of Northern Ireland people, List of English people or List of Scots is more like List of Indians. A list of Famous Bhumihars or List of famous Nairs is more like Famous Middle-Class Americians or List of famous Rednecks. If you need to verify the lists that you've mentioned, you are welcome to put {{fact}} tags (or even move them to deletion, if you are very sure that those lists are unverifiable) -- the burden of evidence falls on the contributors. Please don't complain of systemic bias here. This AFD nomination was by an Indian editor (me), who has not got enough expertise on subjects like Scots and English people. By the way, there have been discussions on whether Abdul Kalam is a Muslim or not (please see respective talk page). utcursch | talk 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If members of this caste have Wikipedia articles in their own right, then link via a category if the membership is documented in the article. The list would by definition be incomplete.Edison 16:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real criteria for inclusion; no sourcing. As an organized and structured list it is better than the precedents were, but not good enough in my eyes. The various sublists might each stand without the Rajput limitation (I.e. List of Param Vir Chakra winners might stand.) Also, as for the presence of other lists, see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. GRBerry 15:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom or Rename to List of Modern Day Rajputs. The word "famous" is inherently POV, as has been discussed many times before. There is no way this list should be allowed to remain with its current name. And there are far too many indiscriminate, unverifiable lists on WP already. The argument that we should have more bad lists because of existing bad lists is futile per GRBerry. We don't keep spam just because there are other spam articles that have yet to be deleted. I find the precedents cited by nom compelling, and think deletion is the best option. Conversion to category is possible too (maybe even preferable to renaming), but the word "famous", in any case, absolutely must go! Xtifr tälk 20:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment step in the right direction, but for me, the real deciding factor is, "castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources." To me, that puts it right in the same category as List of middle-class people or List of rednecks, and not in the same category as verifiable lists like List of Scientologists or List of Welsh people. Xtifr tälk 22:34, 26 October 2006 (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.
- 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 keep. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of famous Jats
Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.
The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list.
On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list. The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing since quite a long time, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV.
Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[9]. Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not.
Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions and list of Pakistan-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete WP:NOT QuiteUnusual 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not able to understand why this is not verifiable. Doctor Bruno 13:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - List of Jats . Perhaps as a fork (not a POV fork) of the Jats article.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:
- List of Scientologists
- List of famous left-handed people
- List of English people
- List of Iranians
- List of Hispanics
- List of English people
- List of Scots
- List of Welsh people
- List of Northern Ireland people
- List of Cornish people
- List of Black Britons
- List of British Asians
- List of British Jews
--Sbei78 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.
- List of English people (not cited)
- List of Scots (not cited)
- List of Welsh people (not cited)
- List of British Asians (not cited)
- List of Northern Ireland people (not cited)
--Sbei78 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Keep Jat is a important caste with important royality, politicians and decorated military personel. Lot of these these people are in the government or the army. Its either a harmless list or caste based categories--Pethj 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The user has a total of 37 edits. utcursch | talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the reason for AFD nomination. I have not nominated this article for deletion because I consider Jats non-notable. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong confident Keep there are many lists of peoples which are not cited and if this list is deleted then they must ALSO be deleted for that reason e.g. List of English people, List of Scots, List of Welsh people, List of British Asians, List of Northern Ireland people, so not valid reason. Moreoever, the statement nobody has bothered to provide a single citation is completely wrong because there has been citings added for verification list.--Vickop 00:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The user has a total of 26 edits. utcursch | talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement is not wrong because the process began after nomination deletion[10]. Providing four citations for such a long list is not enough, in my opinion. utcursch | talk 03:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrespective of your opinion the citation process has already begun and will be increased. --Pethj 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is Citation really needed for such things. If we go on like this, the some one may even ask citation to show that Abdul Kalam is Muslim and Manmohan Singh Sikh. Doctor Bruno 07:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations are needed whenever they are demanded -- the burden on evidence is on the contributors. I won't probably demand citations if this were a List of Indians, List of English people or List of Scots (unless there was some obvious flaw in the list). But this list is more like Famous Middle-Class Americians or List of famous Rednecks. By the way, there have been discussions on whether Abdul Kalam is a Muslim or not (please see respective talk page). utcursch | talk 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is user's second vote. utcursch | talk 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment,That wasn’t a second vote; I was just reiterating my original position (one vote). Moreover, it is highly arrogant of utcursch trying to belittle any user who disagrees with his point. I think it shows someone who is highly insecure and can’t handle anyone having a different opinion to him. It's amazing how whenever someone disagrees with him, he tries to belittle the members’ opinion through introducing things to question the person reputation, it shows someone who is very insecure within himself about people having a different opinion to him (almost fascist/extreme or intolerant).--Pethj 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. utcursch | talk 02:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you also see and read again Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--Pethj 02:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If members of this caste have Wikipedia articles in their own right, then link via a category if the membership is documented in the article. The list would by definition be incomplete. Edison 16:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or at the VERY least, Rename to List of Jats. The word "famous" is inherently POV, as has been discussed many times in the past. And there are far too many indiscriminate, unverifiable lists on WP already. The argument that we should have more bad lists because of existing bad lists is futile—if those lists are bad too, they should be proposed for deletion as well. We don't keep spam merely because there is spam that has yet to be deleted. If the list is kept (and renamed), strict criteria for inclusion should be listed. But I find the precedents cited by Utcursch compelling. Categories are better than lists, IMO, for situations like this, because the inclusion criteria can more easily be discussed on a case-by-case basis that way. Xtifr tälk 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment step in the right direction, but for me, the real deciding factor is, "castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources." To me, that puts it right in the same category as List of middle-class people or List of rednecks, and not in the same category as verifiable lists like List of Scientologists or List of Welsh people. Xtifr tälk 22:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Solid Keep I don't see anything really wrong with the article. I think all it needs is abit of a cleanup. The points raised against it are POV at best, its a solid article, the alteration by Ohconfucius only makes it more solid. James smith2 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have seen the list and have edited it many times,the list to me sounds pretty much authentic except a few names perhaps,especially that nishan e haider thing was not true..
Although most of the names are verifyable..may be the names underdispute s can be delted until a link is provided..
- Keep The list contains notable persons who have done works which brought social changes in the society. We can feel proud of them. Names from the list which can not be verified may be deleted but not the complete list. Deleting the list will serve no purpose. List at one place can serve as an index if one needs to see some entry. We can think of renaming it as List of notable Jats to avoid POV. I strongly feel to Keep. burdak 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the question is not whether these people deserve to appear in a list on Wikipedia; the question is whether "Jat" is a verifiable category under which they can appear. Relisting these people by region might be more appropriate. Xtifr tälk 21:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Burdak.Shyamsunder 5:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. The article does not violate any policies, it has been renamed as suggested by some, and the criteria for inclusion is implicit, as is the case with similar lists. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of famous Nairs
Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.
The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list. On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list.
The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing since over a year now, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV. Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[11].
Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not. Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:I dont think either the Telugu Brahmins nor the Reddys were ever written about in the Lusiad or the Enclycopedia Britannica Ivygohnair 16:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not be a place for discrimination against any groups of people either Ivygohnair 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing new to add from what I said last time. Tintin (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOT QuiteUnusual 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not able to understand why this is not verifiable. Doctor Bruno 13:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi)(1). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (1)(Just like Devan Nair (the former President of Singapore) is Singaporean. That doesn't mean they (Mira Nair and Devan Nair) are both not Nairs)Justice4us 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are absolutely right. Many Nairs don't have the Nair surname and are as opposed to the terrible caste system as you are. But you can't use this to justify deletion because a lot of Jewish people also have non-jewish names.Justice4us 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guidelineIvygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No way to verify the list. Almost 500-600 people are there on the list and most have red links on them. I would rather prefer this was categorized as Category:Nair peole or anything like that. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Strong Keep So a Jew wants to delete our page. Impossible. Don't underestimate Nairs. Delete List of Famous Jews first. Dakshayani 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Note: The user has a total of 3 edits.[reply]
- See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)).[reply]
- Hey, I think this is an unacceptable racist comment and I wonder whether it is not really put up by those who are obsessed with "delete" to discredit the supporters of this list. Frankly if all kinds of people, including the Jews, who like the Nairs are scattered all over the world (the word diaspora was first coined for the jewish people) are allowed to have their list in peace (which is also not perfectly verifiable by the above standards), I don't see why the Nairs can't!Justice4us 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- To Dakshayani: Please see WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). By the way I'm not a Jew. utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC[reply]
- what is racial is asserting (on a space provided to create an encyclopedia) the right for a state to exist on the basis of religion on illegally occupied lands.Dakshayani 07:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know whose side you are on and why you are in this discussion at all! Your crude outburst against the jewish people will only get knee jerk reactions from otherwise neutral admins and users to vote "delete". You can call the Nairs a lot of things but certainly never "stupid" nor "crude". I should know, I am married to a Nair! So you should choose another forum for your invectives, pleaseIvygohnair 16:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete If members of this caste have Wikipedia articles in their own right, then link via a category if the membership is documented in the article. The list would by definition be incomplete.Edison 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment List of English people or any other nationality or religion related lists are quite easy to verify. Most people stay in their own mother countries, or were born there, or talk about it all the time. Eg:Scientologists. But verifying Nairs will be a nightmare, since most people don't talk about their castes at all. Delete by Wiki Verifiability--Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 03:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No criteria for inclusion, no sourcing. WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)) tells us that the presence of other lists that may or may not be in good shape is irrelevant to whether this should be kept. GRBerry 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:
- List of Scientologists
- List of famous left-handed people
- List of English people
- List of Iranians
- List of Hispanics
- List of Scientologists
- List of Scots
- List of Welsh people
- List of Northern Ireland people
- List of Cornish people
- List of Black Britons
- List of British Asians
- List of British Jews
--Sbei78 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think to be fair, what is more important is to consider whether what this user is saying makes sense or not, and not use technicalities to silence or discredit him/her.Justice4us 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.
- List of English people (not cited)
- List of Scots (not cited)
- List of Welsh people (not cited)
- List of British Asians (not cited)
- List of Northern Ireland people (not cited)
--Sbei78 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, more than one article were cited above (actually five). We are talking about double standards here. Of course if other similiar articles exist it is very suspicious why we are picking on the Nairs!Justice4us 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - List of Nairs . Bakaman Bakatalk 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom or Rename per Bakaman. The word "famous" is inherently POV, as has been discussed many times before. There is no way this list should be allowed to remain with its current name. And there are far too many indiscriminate, unverifiable lists on WP already. The argument that we should have more bad lists because of existing bad lists is futile per GRBerry. We don't keep spam just because there are other spam articles that have yet to be deleted. I find the precedents cited by nom compelling, and think deletion is the best option. Conversion to category is possible too (maybe even preferable to renaming), but the word "famous", in any case, absolutely must go! Xtifr tälk 20:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment step in the right direction, but for me, the real deciding factor is, "castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources." To me, that puts it right in the same category as List of middle-class people or List of rednecks, and not in the same category as verifiable lists like List of Scientologists or List of Welsh people. Xtifr tälk 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong, Strong keep I think this is really an obsession with some people on the delete side and I don't think "obsessions" are to be encouraged on a free site like Wikipedia. Please see the discussion of [12] another AfD case. If other lists of people exist, I don't see why the list of Nairs (renamed) should not exist. BTW the Nairs are not neccessary a caste and are really quite famous as a people for they are featured in The Lusiad the National Epic of Portugal published in 1523 and also you can find a write-up of them in the Encyclopedia Britannica.Justice4us 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Justice4us (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
- Wikipedia has an article on Nairs too. I don't have any problem with Nair article. 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)-- (Is this a favourable vote from a user? Admin should show the IP address if this user did not sign in properly).Ivygohnair 16:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I vote for Keep because I don't think the "Nairs" should be singled out for deletion while other "lists" remain.Ivygohnair 06:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but only on one condition: Clean Up the page! This can be done in a jiffy by just deleting all people with red links!Chandrannair 06:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I volunteer to attempt to clean up the page if this survives the AfD process. In fact I will print down a copy of the present list to have on record all the red links, and after I finish editing and creating for notables in Singapore Literature (in a short period of less than a month, I have created several profiles of notable Singaporean poets, playwrights, novelists etc), I will make this my next project. A simple google search will show whether the red links should be even considered for notability. But with so many names I will certainly need a lot of assistance, and I can't promise to be able to check everyone.(btw I just cleaned and rearranged this page. I hope it's more user friendly now:-) Ivygohnair 08:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My opposition is based almost entirely on the unmaintainability and non-verifiablity of the list. If someone takes the responsiblity and actually weeds out the random entries, it may yet turn out to be of some worth. Tintin (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP and clean up.Jean-Louis77 12:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC) — Jean-Louis77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 2006 (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.
- 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 keep. The article does not violate any policies, it has been renamed as suggested by some, and the criteria for inclusion is implicit, as is the case with similar lists. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of famous Tarkhans
Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.
The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list.
On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list. The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing for a long time now, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV.
Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[14]. Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not.
Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete WP:NOT QuiteUnusual 13:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not able to understand why this is not verifiable. Doctor Bruno 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:
- List of Scientologists
- List of famous left-handed people
- List of English people
- List of Iranians
- List of Hispanics
- List of English people
- List of Scots
- List of Welsh people
- List of Northern Ireland people
- List of Cornish people
- List of Black Britons
- List of British Asians
- List of British Jews
--Sbei78 20:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.
- List of English people (not cited)
- List of Scots (not cited)
- List of Welsh people (not cited)
- List of British Asians (not cited)
- List of Northern Ireland people (not cited)
--Sbei78 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If members of this caste have Wikipedia articles in their own right, then link via a category if the membership is documented in the article. The list would by definition be incomplete.Edison 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No criteria for inclusion, no sourcing. See WP:INN for the explanation of why Sbei78's argument is just plain wrong. GRBerry 15:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom or Rename to List of Tarkhans. The word "famous" is inherently POV, as has been discussed many times before. There is no way this list should be allowed to remain with its current name. And there are far too many indiscriminate, unverifiable lists on WP already. The argument that we should have more bad lists because of existing bad lists is futile per GRBerry. We don't keep spam just because there are other spam articles that have yet to be deleted. I find the precedents cited by nom compelling, and think deletion is the best option. Conversion to category is possible too (maybe even preferable to renaming), but the word "famous", in any case, absolutely must go! Xtifr tälk 20:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment step in the right direction, but for me, the real deciding factor is, "castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources." To me, that puts it right in the same category as List of middle-class people or List of rednecks, and not in the same category as verifiable lists like List of Scientologists or List of Welsh people. Xtifr tälk 22:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per wiki convention and Keep but add references and claen upRaveenS 19:10, 31 October 2006 (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.
- 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. Chick Bowen 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vashist Narayan Singh
I'm not sure if this person is notable (gifted but no clear accomplishments that might meet WP:PROF), but this article, which focuses on his mental illness and personal problems, needs to be either rewritten or deleted per WP:BLP and WP:V (added per Bwithh's comment). ~ trialsanderrors 06:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 11:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rewrite The article at present gives an impression of a person with mental illness who was a scientist. It should be re written to potray a scientist with a psychiatric problem Doctor Bruno 13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Tragic, but without proof and clear detail on the "amazing feats" which "startled" Berkeley profs that he's supposed to have performed, this falls well short of WP:PROF. He may well be a genius, but without actual evidence, the "amazing feats" claim sounds like journalistic inflation in the cause of improving a story. Bwithh 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be some contradiction between the article and the external links. Article says subject came to US and completed a PhD at Berkeley in 18 months in mid 1960s. Indian external link says subject was brought over as a research scholar to the US in 1963, and doesn't mention Berkeley at all. Berkeley link says subject completed/submitted his PhD dissertation in 1969. I don't think this subject is a hoax, but the information in the article seems very unreliable at the moment in addition to the issue I emphasized above Bwithh 15:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably not a hoax, but almost certainly hyperbole. This reads like a sensationalist tabloid article. Additionally, some of the assertions are similar to statements made about Srinivasa Ramanujan. I see no evidence of meeting any notability standard. Very few unique Google hits. --N Shar 23:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Abstain after rewrite. I can no longer offer any useful comments. As for Google hits, I did not mean to imply that they were a measure of his notability in India. As originally written, the article was much more focused on his American career, which was largely un-notable from what I could see. Now that the article focuses on India, I can't comment. --N Shar 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google hits is not a criteria for India related issues. Doctor Bruno 13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article at present meets WP:BLP and WP:V. Hence there is no reason to delete per nom Doctor Bruno 13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then delete per Utcursch. I would appreciate you not nitpicking. Danny Lilithborne 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Doctor Bruno,Bakaman Bakatalk 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If Doctor Bruno thinks this would be a worthwhile subject for an article, he can re-write it before this AFD is over, and may convince people (including myself) to change their votes. Or, after the AFD (assuming it gets deleted), he's free to re-create the article with more encyclopedic content. As written, it's drivel. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It has been re written and sources cited Doctor Bruno 13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great, but there's still no evidence for the claims about "amazing feats" Bwithh 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed all the unsourced statements, including "amazing feats". The only statement needing citation is that he was the "first Indian to complete his post-graduate studies before the age of 20". The rest of the statements include references from The Times of India and proceedigs of Lok Sabha. utcursch | talk 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Bwithh; the re-write didn't change anything fundamental. This is still all about the guy's personal problems. That's not an encyclopedia article; it's something I would expect to see in People magazine. What did this guy do to be note worthy? Being a child prodigy and having mental health problems doesn't cut it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't understand. THe rewrite has of course provided citations and is encyclopedic. Please don't invent new criteria just for satisfying your ego of sticking to the initial vote made. The article has been modified and sources cited. It is now in compliance with WP:BLP and WP:V Doctor Bruno 13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ahem, WP:NPA. Bwithh 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great, but there's still no evidence for the claims about "amazing feats" Bwithh 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This may not come under WP:PROF. But as per WP:BIO Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events the subject is definitely notable. Not every one's mental illness is discussed in Loksabha. (On a lighter vein, As per my professor in Medical College, every one is a patient in Psychiatry and Dermatology!!!) This person certainly satisfied WP:BIO and the article is in compliance with WP:V and WP:BLP after the revision by utcursch I request to closing admin to disregard the earlier votes that were made when the article was not revised Doctor Bruno 13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- News coverage, even major news coverage by major sources (which this subject does not have), does automatically equal encyclopedic notability. (and WP:BIO is a guideline, so this subject is not definitely notable anyway, even if one accepts that he has gained notoriety or renown (which I don't think he has based on the evidence). Being mentioned in Parliament is not persuasive as it is the everyday business of members of parliament to discusss specific cases related to petitions made by their constituents. Not every mental patient is discussed specifically in Parliament, but it is not extraordinary for parlimentarians to discuss the cases of specific ordinary citizens. And you can't inform previous voters that the article has been rewritten, but please don't "work the ref". My vote remains unchanged. Bwithh 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Bwithh. After re-reading I still don't see the point of the article. "There, he conducted research on the Cycle Vector Space Theory and his research work catapulted him to great heights in the world of Science." Maybe if this part can be expanded/verified? ~ trialsanderrors 06:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- News coverage, even major news coverage by major sources (which this subject does not have), does automatically equal encyclopedic notability. (and WP:BIO is a guideline, so this subject is not definitely notable anyway, even if one accepts that he has gained notoriety or renown (which I don't think he has based on the evidence). Being mentioned in Parliament is not persuasive as it is the everyday business of members of parliament to discusss specific cases related to petitions made by their constituents. Not every mental patient is discussed specifically in Parliament, but it is not extraordinary for parlimentarians to discuss the cases of specific ordinary citizens. And you can't inform previous voters that the article has been rewritten, but please don't "work the ref". My vote remains unchanged. Bwithh 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article passes WP:BIO as he has been cited by multiple independent sources. Valoem talk 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see anything here which makes the person notable as a mathematician. Suffering from schizophrenia doesn't make him notable either. Paul August ☎ 17:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I still don't see why this man or his work is important or what influence he has had. --C S (Talk) 11:15, 29 October 2006 (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.
- 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 ~ trialsanderrors 01:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jansanskrity and related articles
Fails WP:ORG. Related, non-notable articles: Jansanskrity[15], A.N.Damodaran[16], Jansanskriti,mayurvihar phase3, Jsmv3, Sargotsavam[17]. Google returns very few unrelated results (0 for Jansanskrity). Delete. utcursch | talk 11:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 11:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- keep but merge stubs into Jansanskrity. base notability of the main is established and the program is growing, there is no need to alienate them now by deleting them. i'd put this delete under 'systematic bias', which is present in using google for non-english searches. that said, citations are needed.--Buridan 13:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is no systematic bias and there is no attempt to "alienate" the articles -- I am from India. Can you please explain how the "base notability of the main is established"? There are no citations, no sources -- the burden on evidence lies on the contributors, not the AFD nominators. There are many such organizations -- Jansanskrity fails WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to make sure "growing programs" grow more. utcursch | talk 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete
Keep and merge stubs per BuridanA google search for "Jansanskriti" is a bit better, but in an open-minded way I'm not persuaded of notability against WP:ORG. Does it measure up in the context of Category:Arts organizations? (And spotting one odd one already there, I've just nominated Durham Association for Downtown Arts as well). --Mereda 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC) The AFD I started on that local and low-profile US arts organization as a kind of controlled experiment is heading towards "Keep". So, for consistency, I'll change my vote here. --Mereda 06:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Comment I'm changing back to my original view - just for consistency! - since we've now merged and redirected that US organization into a "Culture" section for its parent city.--Mereda 16:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google search for Jansanskriti gets 30 results, some of which are about a journal called "Hindutva Jansanskriti" and about another organization called "Jansanskriti Manch". utcursch | talk 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hindutva cannot have a 'Jansanskrity'. Because Jansanskrity means 'People's Culture' and Hindutva does not believe in either people as a starting point for any sociological discourse or in the existence of any such thing as people's culture. So thats not a valid reason for the deletion of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.229.4 (talk • contribs)
- Delete all. Main article fails WP:ORG and is unverifiable. Others are also clearly not notable enough to get coverage. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
searching jansanskriti(an alternative spelling of jansanskrity?)brings a few evidences to prove the existence of an organisation by that name[19]The HinduHindustan timesDeepika[20][21]Mathewjoe 11:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)mathewjoe[reply]
- I'm not saying that the organization doesn't exist. It does, and probably has done some good work too. But it doesn't seem to be notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. By the way, four of the links provided by you result in "page not found"s:
- [22]: Not Found
- The Hindu: Not Found
- Hindustan times: The page cannot be found
- Deepika: Active Server Pages error 'ASP 0131'
- utcursch | talk 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] - AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems to be unverifiable. Very little sources, none are mentioned in the article. I find the "keep" comments unconvincing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 404s can often be solved by checking the Wayback Machine. Unfortunately, I got nothing for the first link, which greatly lowered my interest in continuing to investigate. I'm somewhat torn, so I choose to abstain. Xtifr tälk 01:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if those links work, there is no sign of notability. The links provided do not establish notability. [23] is about a play, and mentions that the play was staged at the National School of Drama as part of a theatre festival by this organization. utcursch | talk 04:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as per Utcursch. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 19:13, 12 November 2006 (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.
- 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 all (nothing to merge). Proto::type 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shaju
also Lincoln (Artcell), Cezanne (Artcell), and Ershad, (Singer)
No notability— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs)
Strong Delete. A drummer from a fairly inexperienced Bangladesh rock band, with limited fan following in Bangladesh, and almost no impact outside? Notability very poor. We can't clutter WP with all the musicians in the world who have managed come out with one album. WP is not a fansite. - Aditya Kabir 19:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please sign your nominations. Also, "No Notability" doesn't really make much of a case for deletion here. It would be helpful if you would cite the policies or guidelines this article doesn't meet, in your opinion, in the actual nomination.--Isotope23 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology. Singining was missed due to poor knowledge of the process. That was me. For poor notability check - Wikipedia:Notability (people) - Aditya Kabir 19:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete and add Lincoln (Artcell) and Cezanne (Artcell) to this list. Wildthing61476 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition. That would be - Lincoln (Artcell), Cezanne (Artcell), and Ershad, (Singer) - other members of the band Artcell. - Aditya Kabir 19:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. TJ Spyke 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 01:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to Artcell. The band has an at least spurious chance to pass WP:MUSIC ("Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city..."), but the individual members haven't done enough on their own. Caknuck 19:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A merge would have been advisable if the article had some useful content. Here, they are just one line intros to their role, something that the Artcell article already mentions. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Seems to be non -notable .Nileena joseph 02:37, 27 October 2006 (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.