Misplaced Pages

:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bakasuprman (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 28 October 2006 (→Ongoing deletion debates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:29, 28 October 2006 by Bakasuprman (talk | contribs) (→Ongoing deletion debates)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Points of interest related to India on Misplaced Pages:
Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do
Shortcut
  • ]
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Misplaced Pages: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.
  2. 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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Purge page cache

Automatic delete candidates

(PROD-tagged) pages, culled from Category:Proposed deletion

Dated: October 27, 2006

Dated: October 26, 2006

Dated: October 25, 2006

Dated: 23rd October, 2006

Ongoing deletion debates

Deletion debates culled from WP:AFD and WP:MFD
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)

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)

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)

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 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 13:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • 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 - 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 ----> . Therefore, the article's deletion is a must. -- Shammy89 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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 IndianCow 09:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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.
Possibilites are immense, can you second this with any citation..IndianCow 07:28, 2 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 Delete - no real argument put forward that it is anything but crystal-ballery. Yomangani 13:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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 18:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Delete Misplaced Pages is not for speculation. Hello32020 19:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Current and future event templates#Future_events utcursch | talk 09:24, 29 October 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Soni (Indian family name)

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)
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 06:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

NIIT

Reads like advertising copy or extreme fancruft. --Saganaki- 06:58, 27 October 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 delete. W.marsh 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 - not unlike what you said at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hindu . Bakaman Bakatalk 01:35, 28 October 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 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)

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)

  • 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 02:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — The only relevant hit I find goes back to Misplaced Pages... -- lucasbfr 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • Delete unverified, questionable notability, and borders on patent nonsense and indiscriminate collection of information. 129.98.212.67 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 . 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)
  • Delete First of all, and I may be wrong about this, but Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
Comment There are at least a couple of ways to look at you comment. We should delete all fiction from the Misplaced Pages, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages's drive to rid itself of systemic bias. --The Way 18:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep is 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)
  • Strong Keep I had a another look back and at one point the list was much better: 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)
  • 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 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)
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)

Sree Pushpaka Seva Sangham

Non-notable organisation & prod notice removed without comment. 3 google hits other than Misplaced Pages. A linked article on Pushpakadhwani, apparently a minor publication, was deleted recently as an expired prod. Mereda 07:33, 25 October 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 CANCELLED. Massive sockpuppetry here making the debate basically meaningless. A re-run in a sock-free environment is needed. -Splash - tk 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

S. Jithesh

Non notable political cartoonist. No google hits at all. All the external links in the article are from blogs. The articles earlier AFD can be found here. The magazine Chiricheepu was also deleted and its Afd. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 03:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, a little reluctantly, because he's obviously a talented cartoonst, but more evience needed of notability. --BrownHairedGirl 14:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Evaluating an article where the references are not online is frustrating, but references are references, online or not. I confirmed one of his books at the Library of Congress, which uses a different transliteration for his name. On that basis, I think notability and verifiability are established. Is there a Cartoonists' Association of India which has awarded him a prize or in which he has held office? That would be worth mentioning. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment LOC's and S jithesh's link

But the library has a book on every author. Does this make him noteworthy--Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

      • Not every author of a book in the Library of Congress' collection is notable. However, since list of books in the article didn't include ISBN, I wanted to verify that the books exist. I was able to find one of the books listed in the article. The Library of Congress listing establishes verifiability rather than notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep-I'm a journalist in Malayalam. I'm very familiar with his name.He is highly notable in the field of cartooning. His cartoons and anatomical sketches reveals his mastery over the art. Please see the external links . Those who have firsthand knowledge in fine arts can easily judge his skills. He used to draw and write for all major Malayalam Publications. -- Nileena joseph 18:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment great to have local input, but I'm afraid that the issue here is not what we make of his skills (and he looks good to me!), but how notable he is. Can you offer any evidence on his notability? --BrownHairedGirl 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment- Google contains more than 30 results on him. I have found his name as a journalist in an official website of Kerala State Government. Please check it out.. Most of his writings and cartoons are in Malayalam Language. I couldn't know whether English translations are available or not...? S. Jithesh is also famous as the editor of noted Malayalam Cartoon Monthly Chiricheppu. Readers and artlovers of Kerala know him very well.Nileena joseph 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Please check out your first link. It shows that s jithesh works as a special correspondent for Mangalam in New delhi. But this S jithesh as written in the article works in Kerala. The two are different jitesh's.--Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment-I got an article to prove his notability from our press club library Kottayam. Jeevitham Enne Enthu Padippichu?(What the life has taught me?)is a popular philosophical column in Samakalika Malayalam(Famous weekly published by The Indian Express Daily). This column publishes the philosophical views and visions of noted personalities in different walks of life. I have found philosophical views and biography of S. Jithesh in that column.(2004 october 1st issue) I'm uploading a scanned copy of that page.Those who know Malayalam language can read this.]Nileena joseph 08:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A well known cartoonist in Kerala. When there was a controversy over Chiricheppu last time, I asked few guys who were on a training in AIMS and they told that he is fairly well known in Kerala  Doctor Bruno  22:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable cartoonist.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep-Excellent wellknown cartoonist of Kerala. Ihave seen so many cartoons drawn by Jithesh.Nooranadu mohan 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; a majority of the keep recommendations indicate this is a notable cartoonist, but without any sort of references or reliable sources to back up that assertion per WP:BIO. Similarly, as an author, I don't see any references or reliable sources indicating that his book meets WP:BK. Geocities links do not satisfy WP:RS. --Kinu /c 04:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have checked the links.Highly reliable. Chintha is a noted Malayalam online Magazine.Please see: ].Malayalam is an important vernacular Indian language.But News reports from Malayalam newspapers or periodicals are not available in Google search. Jithesh is a writer cum cartoonist in Malayalam Language. I have read his latest poem in Onappathippu 2006 of Veekshanam daily . Joshygeorge 06:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep- This user is a Kerala Cartoonist. So I can affirm easily that Jithesh is a noted Kerala Cartoonist. His cartoons are used to appear in almost all Malayalam periodicals. In addition to that I have watched his interviews in Malayalam Telivision Channels like Doordarsan, Asianet etc. I have seen 8 or 9 external links provided in the article. All are reliable.His anatomical drawings are of superb quality. It reminds the quality of great masters in art.But only a diamond merchant recognises the supreme quality of diamond. Joshygeorge 08:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Keep Article contains objective and worthy informations about the works of a notable Indian Artist/Cartoonist.Dr.khan 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Strong KeepS.Jithesh is a noted cartoonist and is a noted figure in Malyalam Cartoon field. i have seen his interviews and programmes in all leading Malayalam tv channels.His cartoons and interviews appear in all leading malayalam newspapers (like Mathrubhumi,Malayal manorama,etc.) regularlyAdv. P. R. Bijuchandran 08:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy Keep As per all Kerala wikipedians said this article is about a famous kerala cartoonist. Recently he was a chief guest in DoorDarshan's (thiruvananthapuram)Nisagandhi live programme. I had watched it. I read his cartoons in Mathrubhumi newspaper's Narmabhumi. I have verified the external links and references added to the article back up that assertion per WP:BIO.I'm sure this artist is highly notable .All are reliable links and sources.As per TruthbringerToronto said enlisting in Library of Congress already prooved verifiability part. Devapriya 17:03, 29 October 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.
  • Keep He a noted cartoonist in Malayalam cartoon field. No google hits does'nt imply that he is not notable or famouse. That is waht we Wikipedians are for:)!! Kjrajesh
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Gurvinder Jagdev

del nn lower-level official. `'mikkanarxi 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I am sure that less than 5 people of the electorate of the "Local elections" would have ever known about Misplaced Pages and not more than 2 would read this article. That is the level of penetration of Internet in India (except in Cities)  Doctor Bruno  22:36, 24 October 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Prof K E Viswanathan

Fails WP:V (probably there is an issue of Conflict of Interest too)  Doctor Bruno  02:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why this fails WP:V -- Librarianofages 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No sources have been given  Doctor Bruno  02:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Have you tried to verify the information yourself? -- Librarianofages 03:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Article and more Articles  Doctor Bruno 
Please avoid the term Vanity. We can better use Conflict of Interest for that Doctor Bruno 
Less results using "-wikipedia" flag: . utcursch | talk 05:18, 24 October 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous Bhumihars

Badly-named indiscriminate list. Prod by Utcursch (talk · contribs) with the comment "Misplaced Pages is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys". Prod removed by Sbei78 (talk · contribs), which appears to be a single purpose account created for contesting prods and AfDs of similar lists. I find the precedents for the previous deletions persuasive, and agree that this list should be removed, however, if the list is not deleted, I would recommend renaming it to Lists of Bhumihars List of Bhumihars, to remove the inherently POV term "famous", and to make it clear that this is a list. Xtifr tälk 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Rename - famous is POV, yet lists are a better alternative to caste based cats, which are horrible.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:18, 24 October 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 delete without userfication. --Coredesat 04:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Nedunthally

Bio of a student. Fails WP:BIO. 11 Google results. Userfy to User:Theknighted and Delete. utcursch | talk 07:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to userfy. These are that editor's only edits. Tintin (talk) 09:08, 23 October 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.
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)

List of Famous Modern Day Rajputs

Misplaced Pages is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Misplaced Pages: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. 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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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)
The reason for deletion is not "Rajputs are not notable". The reason is: Misplaced Pages is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc. utcursch | talk 03:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Merge to List of Rajputs - per utcursh's logic.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:

--Sbei78 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.

--Sbei78 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not always consistent; the existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. Moreover, verifiability is very important. Zetawoof 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • Delete If members of this caste have Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. GRBerry 15:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)

List of famous Jats

Misplaced Pages is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Misplaced Pages: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. 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)


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)

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)
  • Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:

--Sbei78 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.

--Sbei78 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
Note: The user has a total of 37 edits. utcursch | talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read the reason for AFD nomination. I have not nominated this article for deletion because I consider Jats non-notable. Misplaced Pages is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Note: The user has a total of 26 edits. utcursch | talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The statement is not wrong because the process began after nomination deletion. Providing four citations for such a long list is not enough, in my opinion. utcursch | talk 03:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Irrespective of your opinion the citation process has already begun and will be increased. --Pethj 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is user's second vote. utcursch | talk 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
  • 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)
  • Delete If members of this caste have Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Comment: the question is not whether these people deserve to appear in a list on Misplaced Pages; 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)
  • 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)

List of famous Nairs

Misplaced Pages is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Misplaced Pages: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.

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)

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)

Misplaced Pages should not be a place for discrimination against any groups of people either Ivygohnair 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no discrimination here. I've is no doubt on notability of Nairs. The article on Nairs is not on deletion. utcursch | talk 14:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not able to understand why this is not verifiable.  Doctor Bruno  13:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)).
  • 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).
  • 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)
  • 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).
  • Delete If members of this caste have Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
  • Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:

--Sbei78 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
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)

--Sbei78 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • Comment article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages. Please see the discussion of 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.
  • Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 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 19:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

List of famous Tarkhans

Misplaced Pages is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Misplaced Pages: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. 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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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)
  • Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:

--Sbei78 20:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.

--Sbei78 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If members of this caste have Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Rename per wiki convention and Keep but add references and claen upRaveenS 19:10, 31 October 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 delete. Chick Bowen 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 11:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
Comment Google hits is not a criteria for India related issues.  Doctor Bruno  13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
Then delete per Utcursch. I would appreciate you not nitpicking. Danny Lilithborne 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Doctor Bruno,Bakaman Bakatalk 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
Comment It has been re written and sources cited  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That's great, but there's still no evidence for the claims about "amazing feats" Bwithh 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
ahem, WP:NPA. Bwithh 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • Keep This article passes WP:BIO as he has been cited by multiple independent sources. Valoem 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)

Jansanskrity and related articles

Fails WP:ORG. Related, non-notable articles: Jansanskrity, A.N.Damodaran, Jansanskriti,mayurvihar phase3, Jsmv3, Sargotsavam. Google returns very few unrelated results (0 for Jansanskrity). Delete. utcursch | talk 11:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 11:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • 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)
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. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle to make sure "growing programs" grow more. utcursch | talk 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
this is more of a keep all as they are made than a delete one because the rest are not made in my mind. i think it passes wp:org given its press coverage. --Buridan 13:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Press coverage? Where? What? utcursch | talk 15:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Keep and merge stubs per Buridan A 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)
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)
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)
Firstly, this is not the reason the article has been nominated for deletion. Secondly, "Hindutva Jansanskriti" exists. utcursch | talk 13:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

searching jansanskriti(an alternative spelling of jansanskrity?)brings a few evidences to prove the existence of an organisation by that nameThe HinduHindustan timesDeepikaMathewjoe 11:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)mathewjoe

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 Misplaced Pages. By the way, four of the links provided by you result in "page not found"s:
utcursch | talk 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 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)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Even if those links work, there is no sign of notability. The links provided do not establish notability. 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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
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: after discounting WP:SPAs, no consensus, the divisive point being whether major-party candidates are notable. --Sam Blanning 15:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Arjinderpal Sekhon

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

delete, yet another political nominee lacking WP:BIO and WP:C&E. Vectro 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Running for office does not make one notable. Kafziel 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete Beyond being the first South Asian American to run for that District's Congressional seat, Sekhon is also the only Sikh-American to be contesting a Congressional seat in this election. Mr. Sekhon is also a notable figure in South Asian-American politics, as evidenced by numerous fundraisers and speaking engagements being held for him across California and the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalil78 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 17 October 2006
  • DO NOT delete. Dr. Sekhon is an Army Veteran running for Congress in California's District 2. This election is very important because Dr. Sekhon was the underdog in the Democratic primaries against Falzett, and now in the general election against Wally Herger. Also, as stated by the previous posting, he is the ONLY Sikh running for Congress in this upcoming election. If you would like more information on this candidate, then you can check out the links on the article that will direct you to his campaign website! --Gtorresjr 18:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. If/when he wins, then he'll qualify as notable. Just because he's a Sikh, and just because he's the only one running, doesn't give him any special notability. Now, on the other hand, if WP:BIO were satisfied by multiple independent media references, then that would be a different story. Understand: it's the media references that connote notability, not who/what he is. Akradecki 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete. Dr. Sekhon is a Colonel in the United States Army Reserves. He is also the democratic candidate in the 2nd Congressional District of California. He is mentioned on the wikepedia page for Wally Herger and since Wikepedia serves as a site for people seeking information it only seems logical to include his information here so that voters can look him up and find information on him. I do not think that it is a controversial issue to include his bio and website info in this database. --User:Aks1015
  • DO NOT delete The following link is an article on Arjinderpal's view on fighting to protect religious rights and freedom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtorresjr (talk • contribs) --Gtorresjr 19:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why can't his information be edited so that I can include the articles that talk about his fight in protecting religious freedom? --Gtorresjr 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. This is not the place to campaign. Kafziel 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not campaigning. If your main argument in deleting this article is because it lacks media sources, then I was going to include additional cites and information. Each person can have a different interpretation as to whom is a hero in his or her community. I do not understand who makes you the judge of that? --Gtorresjr 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not the one who nominated it for deletion and I'm not the one who removed your external links, but both of those editors were correct in doing so. We have standards of quality and reliability for external links (you can see a general guideline here) and yours did not meet them. Kafziel 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, I am glad that you are not the editor that deleted the posting. I will say, however, that I am not the person that wrote that original bio on Arjinderpal. I know that your site's information is modifiable and I was interested in adding more information in order to make it meet the site's guidelines and standards. I am not trying to campaign, but rather, educate people on who this member is in their community and what he has done for them and their country. That's all. --Gtorresjr 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for same rationale provided in my prior prod deletion. Users favoring keep don't appear familiar with precedents such as WP:BIO or WP:C&E. "Currently running for Congress" equates to me as "not in Congress." There are thousands of people running for Congressional seats, and most of them don't stand a significant chance of passing WP:BIO until such time as they attain a seat. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, after all. Luna Santin 19:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I just tried to edit the article to conform to the guidelines by inserting more outside, third-party verifiable sources to lend credence to Mr. Sekhon's notability and expand upon the scope of his contributions and work outside of this election, but the page cannot be edited. What do those editors who are advocating deletion recommend to make the article more valuable and to save it from deletion? The discussion on candidates and elections, ] clearly indicates that the fact that a candidate has not yet been elected is not, in and of itself, grounds for deletion.--Khalil78 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with this last posting. I have several articles that talk about Mr. Sekhon's campaign as well as him being a community advocate, which would make his article safe from deletion. --Gtorresjr 20:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Khalil78, that is a proposed guideline. It has no particular relevance yet except as it applies to the established guidelines. This is the currently accepted guideline for notability, and although it provides a link to the discussion it does not support the proposal. Kafziel 20:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Luna Santin. --Aaron 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for chiming in Aaron, we missed you! --Gtorresjr 21:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Do yourself a favor and go read WP:DICK. --Aaron 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Who is "we"? According to your contributions, today is your first day on the job. So whose sockpuppet are you? Kafziel 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I just find it humorous that all five of you are placing so much emphasis on deleting this one particular article as if it contained false information. I am sure there are plenty of people now posting delete-worthy articles, however your attention is all invested in this one community leader. It is quite disturbing! --Gtorresjr 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Don't worry - I have plenty of attention to go around. It's just that for some reason when whitebread candidates get nominated for deletion (like Sekhon's former opponent Bill Falzett, who was nominated for deletion today as well), it doesn't take quite so much argument. For some reason, a million meatpuppets don't come out of the woodwork for them. Kafziel 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Those that know and understand American Politics (which I am sure is discussed to some extent on this site), should know that once a person loses in his or her party's primary, that such person is no longer in the race and is not part of the General Election. Since Mr. Falzett is no longer in the race, this could be why people are not responding to Kafziel and Vectro's desire to delete Falzett's article. --Gtorresjr 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Gtorresjr, I would like to point out it takes very little effort to delete an article that is not notable. Even when people create multiple accounts so they can vote more than once, this is easily ignored due to the website's record keeping system. Do not think we are terribly inconvenienced by this article's passing. We still have time to weed out other innapropriate articles. Misplaced Pages has literally thousands of people watching it, so don't worry too much. HighInBC 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not imply anything. What I said should be taken literally, please do not infer anything else. HighInBC 01:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete He sounds like a decent guy, but not yet notable on the basis of information provided. Uucp 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The person in question is just a candidate, not a Congress rep yet. When elected, I think we can resurrect this article. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 22:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep being a congressional candidate from a major party (in which a Democratic primary had to be won in order to get endorsement) and being covered in reliable publications seems to me to establish notability. It should also be noted that Misplaced Pages:Candidates and elections is a proposed policy--Jersey Devil 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep'- per jersey.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • QUESTION I found some articles that talk about Dr. Sekhon's campaign, and another one about his previous engagement in protecting religious rights. The article is no longer modifiable in order to include additional sources. What can be done?--Gtorresjr 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is quite editable. If you have reliable sources to add, then please do so. Vectro 22:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I definitely agree, there -- if you've got reliable sources or any other ways to fix up the article, now's the time. If you make dramatic changes, it may be worth taking a moment to note them here, in this discussion, so that other editors (myself included) can review the changes and see if their opinions are impacted. Good luck. Luna Santin 10:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all articles about major-party candidates for Congress or other offices of that significance. This case is stronger than some others because he won a contested primary. JamesMLane t c 10:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jersey Devil; C&E is not policy or even a guideline and it's not a good proposed guideline either, in my opinion. He's notable. Our only fear should be that candidates would use Misplaced Pages to promote their campaigns. However, major party Congressional candidates are not garage bands, and that's not why these articles get created. It's of historical interest to see who the major candidates were, regardless of who wins. That yields insight into the policital climate and dynamics of the day. We're not paper, and we can spare 1K for this. I am confident that some people in that region will still find this article of interest in a 100 years, as a small window into the local political past. Fishboy 10:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- he won a contested primary in the district-wide election for Congress. He's certainly notable in _that_ district. And, as per above . . . -- Sholom 17:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have many articles on candidates who do not currently hold political office. Sekhon is, as has been stated above, a notable candidate in many ways, and Misplaced Pages should have information on him. Academic Challenger 21:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with Sekhon is that there seem to be multiple spellings of his first name + he sometimes goes by AJ.

I've added some links to newspaper articles about him almost all of which were already online when he got nominated. Oh and here's a fairly good google search. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Sekhon+herger&sa=N&tab=nw BTW

  • Keep

grazon 05:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep- He has won the June 2006 Democratic primary to gain the nomination to run for a seat in the United States House of Representatives, defeating Bill Falzett. May be a notable fellow.Nileena joseph 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete as non-noteable.... for now. If he wins, yes, he should have an article. But if he loses and never does anything else of note then we will never have anything more then a stub. ---J.S (t|c) 20:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Congressional elections are every two years. For historical purposes, it is mportant to have articles of those candidates that run for Congress. Whether a person wins or losses, he or she is still part of the democratic process that we should all take seriously. --69.86.55.138 05:31, 28 October 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 delete - as pointed out, there is nothing here that would aid the writing of a verified article on this subject; and as there is no dispute that the article as it is fails WP:V and other core policies, it has to be deleted. A total rewrite wouldn't be necessary - this deletion doesn't prejudice against someone creating a verified stub (stubs do have to be verified - it wouldn't make a very good starting point if it wasn't). --Sam Blanning 15:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Shakdwipi Brahmins

A very poorly written and poorly sourced stream-of-consciousness history of what would seem to be an Indian caste. This topic may well deserve its own article, but this is not it: its only source is a sort of community forum website, from which large parts of the text seem to have been lifted verbatim (see e.g. this link). Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V and/or as a copyvio. Sandstein 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, but tag for complete rewrite. This version is in the form of an unsalvageable history essay, though, as mentioned, we should have a proper article on it. (|-- UlTiMuS 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree it needs a rewrite - but here at AfD, we can essentially only keep, delete, merge or redirect it. Feel free to do the rewrite once it's been deleted. Sandstein 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've clarified my stance - I assumed one would infer that a keep was in order. (|-- UlTiMuS 20:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree. It's unsalvageable anyway, so we might as well delete it unless someone gets around to the rewrite. But more importantly, we must delete the copyvio text it presently contains, and we should also delete it on grounds of unverifiability alone - or do you have any reliable source attesting to the mere existence of this caste? Sandstein 20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"Article needs cleanup" is not a .--Nilfanion (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but this is one worthless unsourced WP:OR article. Or do you have any sources that we could even base a stub on? Sandstein 06:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/rewrite from scratch at the moment, article is poorly written, as well as violates POV. References from google are just from forums and other websites. At the moment, I can't even find a book which references it. . Pardon me for saying this, I have never heard of them till now. Maybe it is a hoax. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 01:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no sourcing. The "related link" has the earmarks of a nearly dead site: a forum with 17 members, no articles, no active topics, a top download with 6 hits, etc... A google search for "shakdwipi" excluding the words "wikipedia" and "forum" returns only 28 unique hits out of only 84 total hits. None of those are reliable sources. Google Scholar search for "shakdwipi" returns no hits. Google Book search has only one hit, the snippet view makes me believe that there are such people as Shakdwipi Brahmins. But the combination of results lead me to believe that it will be close to impossible to write an article compliant with WP:NOR. GRBerry 03:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like this article to be kept, maybe it requires some editing, this is no neologisms and anyone who is aware of the communities in india are aware of this very old community, just that other websites don't list anything about it doesn't mean you too should remove it from the website, why is wiki number# 1 encyclopedia online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doitfox (talk • contribs) -- This comment was originally posted to this AFD's talk page. Sandstein 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) — Doitfox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Informative but rewrite the article to avoid clumsiness. Nileena joseph 15:34, 27 October 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.

Categories for deletion

Category: