Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agri (caste)


 * 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. Reliable sources have been provided. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Agri (caste)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The topic fails WP:GNG, as the article cites no reliable sources to establish that the topic is notable or even really exists. The article has repeatedly attracted unsourced and unreliable edits. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No clear significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This caste is a locally covered one only. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , what's the definition of local? &#x222F; WBG converse 16:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment-Curiously, I can see significant mentions over here, here and here. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - some significant mentions Spiderone  09:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There appear to be significant sources on the topic aside from those found by WBG.  They are also sources on related terms Mithagris, Dholagris and Sudh-Agris etc.. it should not be difficult to expand this into a full article. Hzh (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I will note that Raj--era sources (i.e. pre 1941 census stuff and those that derive from them esp. Horace, Enthoven et al) are blatanly un-reliable. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are sources from 1907 to 2012, therefore any concerns over Raj era sources being unreliable is not really that relevant. Note that the nominator claims that there are no RS to establish that the caste exists, I think we can safely say that there are indeed reliable sources to show that it does exist. The claim of Raj era census being inaccurate has no bearing on this unless the claim is that they had invented the people (which cannot be true because there are post-Raj publications on them). Hzh (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , see User:Sitush/CasteSources for a detailed discussion and a lot more can be added to it.FWIW, I am a keep solely because sources that do not derive from them have mentioned the subject in a significant manner.Best, &#x222F; WBG converse 05:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am actually aware of the claim made by Sitush because he had been deleting a bunch of Indian census figures. For what it's worth, I think he is wrong in what he did, because he is taking a position on something we should not take. Sitush made wide-ranging accusation which are just arguments presented by other people, taking sides in the argument, and sometimes turning "some figures may be unreliable" into "all are unreliable". Let's say if some post-Raj census figures turn out to be unreliable, that does not make all post-Raj census figures unreliable.  Whether particular figures are unreliable is something for historians to judge, we don't make the judgement, we simply write what they say. Hzh (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , utter rubbish. Once, a historian/ethnographer/a source has been documented to be unreliable by multiple academics, we don't use that source. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sitush deleted everything, not just parts of those figures said to be unreliable. You'd find that a huge part of any history is contested with many people taking position on either side of the argument. We can described any disagreement, but we don't take any position on them except to report them as reliably and fairly as possible. I would have simply left the figures and explain why some may be unreliable, although personally I don't care about the figures to want to start a fight about them. This argument in any case has got nothing to do with this AfD. Hzh (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The article does not provide independent reliable sources.13:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Alex-h (talk)
 * Absence of sources in the article does not mean lack of notability per WP:NEXIST, therefore an independent search for sources is useful when you want to determine notability. Hzh (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The index of The Development Dilemma: Displacement in India refers to "Agri caste" over eight pages.  Only passing mentions are visible in google preview, but it clearly has a lot more to say than that.  This snippet from The Journal of the Anthropological Society of Bombay is published 1953 and is hence just about post Raj era.  It shows a substantial review of a paper or book about the Agri.  LIkewise Agris: A Socio-economic Survey was published in 1952 and is entirely about the topic.  I could go on, there is much more out there.  Notability is easily established.  The suggestion that they might not even exist is just plain ludicrous and a miserable failure of WP:BEFORE.  As for the claim that the article has repeatedly attracted unsourced and unreliable edits since when has that been grounds for deletion.  I point you to the Donald Trump article (and probably just about every article on current American politicians). Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.