User:CactusJack/cbp drv

Overturn as keep: This is a case in which a close that goes against the !vote count is called for. The guide to closing discussions states that Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.

In the collapsed box below, I've briefly summarized each of the keep and delete arguments presented in the AfD.

Keeps:
 * Andrew Davidson: passes GNG, remaining issues best solved through cleanup not deletion
 * JustBeCool: per Andrew Davidson
 * My very best wishes: passes GNG, not a content fork
 * Crossroads: passes GNG, not about any one caste but about the phenomenon as a whole. States that claims about OR are without evidence and that it is a broad phenomenon distinct from any individual caste.
 * Flyer22 Frozen: "I'm not understanding the rationale for delete while the rationale for keep is clear and solid."
 * Goldsztajn: not OR.
 * CactusJack (myself): per Crossroads. Also added a later detailed comment providing several sources covering the phenomenon as a whole, and using these sources to argue that the topic passes GNG and is not OR.
 * Epiphyllumlover: passes GNG per above

Deletes and Merges:
 * Capankajsmilyo: OR, GNG
 * CodeSlashh: per Capankajsmilyo, content fork
 * Desmay: POV fork
 * D4iNa4: OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, OR, NOPAGE
 * Kaweendra: NOPAGE, INDISCRIMINATE
 * IP 2402: POV fork
 * Mohanabhil: POV fork, GNG
 * Harmanprtjhj: POV fork, NOPAGE, GNG
 * Orientis: OR, misrepresenting sources
 * Aman Kumar Goel: POV fork, NOPAGE ("the title of the subject isn't treated as a separate subject by any of the sources")
 * Lorstaking: NOPAGE, GNG, OR
 * Reywas92: merge to Prostitution in India per NOPAGE
 * Srijanx22: Sources don't address topic as a whole
 * Johnmgking: per Reywas92
 * Shrikanthv: "creepy" per OR/SYNTH
 * Abhishek0831996: GNG, OR, NOPAGE
 * Otr5000: "duck test", POV fork
 * Stifle: POV fork
 * Tim Templeton: merge to Prostitution ("not enough yet for a fork; just two countries and a handful of castes")
 * Lightburst: merge to Prostitution in India; no rationale given

From this, we can see that there are a few common arguments:


 * Keep rationales
 * Passes GNG
 * Not original research
 * Not a content fork/POV fork
 * Delete rationales
 * Fails GNG
 * Original research/synthesis
 * Per WP:NOPAGE
 * Article is a POV fork

I will now go through these arguments one by one to demonstrate that the arguments for keeping the article are based in policy while the arguments for deleting the article are not.


 * GNG: The general notability guideline states that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Presumed to be [notable]" implies that when the specified coverage has been shown to exist, the burden of proof is on those advocating deletion - they must provide solid arguments for why the topic still is not notable. In this AfD, Keep !voters cited the following sources in their !votes, replies, and comments:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Delete !voters questioned the applicability of the 2nd, 3rd, 13th (implicitly), and 16th (implicitly) sources in that list. Thus the following 14 sources presented by Keep !voters went unchallenged by delete !voters: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Looking at just a few of these sources:
 * , : content from Public Radio International's "The World" program, also republished in The Week. PRI provides content for over 850 public radio stations. This combined with their "about" page makes me highly confident in their editorial process. The coverage is significant (the entire article); clearly, PRI is independent of the subject. All three criteria are met.
 * : In-depth feature in Al Jazeera, a reliable source (per WP:RSP) that is independent of the subject. Coverage is significant (the entire article, again). All three criteria are met.
 * : Full-length article, in the Los Angeles Times, a reliable source (per WP:RSP) that is independent of the subject. All three criteria are met.
 * : Full-length article in The Guardian, a reliable source (per WP:RSP) that is independent of the subject. All three criteria are met.
 * ...and so on and so forth.
 * Clearly the topic passes the GNG. The Delete rationales citing GNG do not stand up under examination.


 * Original research: the main thrust of the delete arguments here is that editors of the article cobbled together coverage of prostitution in individual castes without there being any existing discussion of the overarching phenomenon of caste-based prostitution as a whole. Again, the sources provided by the Keep !voters prove this to be unfounded. Three academic publications (two studies and a master's thesis) were cited in the deletion discussion, and all of them focus specifically on the link between caste and prostitution:, , . In a few cases, even some of the articles discussing the issue  in individual castes allude to the wider problem:
 * PRI "The World":
 * The Guardian:
 * WP:NOPAGE: this was cited by numerous delete !voters. However, such Vague waves at policy acronyms have no value without accompanying explanations. WP:NOPAGE specifies three criteria for consideration. The third is clearly not applicable in this case. No delete !voter made a clear argument based on the first or second criteria. Furthermore, WP:NOPAGE is about splitting vs merging, not about outright deletion, and most of the !votes citing NOPAGE were for deletion, not merging.
 * POV fork: Quite simply, delete !voters did not provide meaningful evidence that the article is a POV fork. I'm not sure there's too much to say here that wasn't already said in the AfD.