Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awasthi

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 00:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Awasthi
Non-notable, unprovable claim of the surname being significant.
 * Delete: Ragib 22:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I want to add that the place for surname promotions should be genealogy project of wikipedia, (http://genealogy.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page). There are hundreds of thousands of surnames in India and in Asia, and an encyclopedia is not the place to promote them, unless that represents a completely different clan/caste/tribe etc. So, I'd affirm my vote for deleting this and/or moving it to genealogy site. Ragib 21:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Awasthi
 * Delete, not notable, geneology, possible family vanity. Megan1967 03:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Notable surname with strong regional affiliation and social implications. Definitely not family vanity. Unlike Anglo-Saxon surnames, Indian surnames are different than Anglo-Saxon ones; often they indicate that a person originates from a particular region or subculture. There are lots of regions in India where almost everyone has the same last name! Second, as the article implies, surnames in India have meaningful social implications. Don't vote off the cuff. Say delete only if you know something about India and have valid reasons. Geneology is a purely Western phenomenon. Our judgements of "significance" and "notability" can easily carry a Western-centric bias. In conclusion, I would argue that some surnames are notable simply for being common and widespread, and this one obviously satisfies that criterion, albeit on a regional level. --Smithfarm
 * Strong keep . Indian surnames have links to the history of a region . This article should not be deleted but can be merged under a broader topic. I TOTALLY support Smithfarms view on  this vote. Leningrad 09:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep . Indian surnames are different from Anglo Saxon names and relate to regions or customs/traditions. The best way for keeping these articles would be grouping them under a broader group on Indian Surnames. I thank Smithfarm for his in-depth views on this article and in-fact to be honest, am surprised a bit on his knowledge of the Indian social system. The social system is so varied in India, that the same community when you move from one state to another, will change their food habits, customs, traditions and even marriage criteria etc. So if Brahmins by surname 'Awasthi' dont allow marriages in same family; brahmins by surname Aiyyar would actually consider cousins as the first candidates for marriage. And this is only ONE of the millions of anamolies related to just surnames or regions or other criteria of 'non-notable' significance. Unless the world is not interested in knowing that kind of variations existing in it; the article may be considered fit for deleting, but then half of the rest of pages would fall in that kind of category.


 * Strong keep &#8211; I fully agree with Smithfarm and Leningrad.  May be, over a period of time, all such / similar articles, in some case,  may have to be merged/redirected /  brought under a special India specific category.
 * Keep. Interesting article that doesn't really fall into the straitjacket of genealogy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, once deciphered, Indian surnames / family names / caste / jati, etc. have mythological, historical and sociological significance and the information so revealed work as a socio-historical DNA fingerprinting. After all, the recorded Indian civilization stretches back to 500+ BC and Indian mythology and epics are even older.

Any article about  (Indian) surnames / family names have nothing to do with promoting one&#8217;s image or family name, or to do anything with genealogy. In the Indian subcontinent, people of different faiths, and diverse regions, may have the same family name / surname, for example, &#8220;Choudhary&#8221; is a surname / family name, which a muslim family may have in Dhaka, Bangla Desh and a Hindu family may have in Lucknow, India. All said and done, I reiterate that the fact remains that Indian surnames/family names have historical and sociological significance and they function like socio-historical DNA fingerprints. Wikipedia and we, the Wikipedians should continue to contribute to enrich &#8220;the sum total of human knowledge&#8221;, of course, conforming to the Wikian philosophy and standard. And, so all bit of information is necessary, so that a seeker of knowledge should not return empty handed from wikipedia. Yes, sure, ''Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.''- --Bhadani 17:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)yes, I am to edit this article, right now.--Bhadani 17:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I actually agree with the socks on this one!  Bhadani's statement cinched it for me. - Lucky 6.9 23:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.