Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamraulia


 * 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. North America1000 01:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Bamraulia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. I have no idea why DGG de-prodded it in 2013 but it seems to have created another layer of bureaucracy for nothing. Sitush (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: No source to prove notability.--MahenSingha (Talk) 11:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Pinging for input. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Uncertain at this point. I saw then, and see now, that we have similar articles for several dozen clans, and that it was appeared to be sourced. Rather than consider it uncontested, . it thought that it needed discussion, of what sourcing is appropriate for these. I think it still does.  DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've lost track of how many times I have tried to explain the issues of sourcing and caste identity to you, DGG, either directly or via discussions such as these. It seems to be a waste of my time. British Raj sources are not reliable, sources that claim to be affiliated to a caste are not reliable, castes themselves are often figments of the imagination based on past and/or current socio-economic jostling by vested interests, government lists are ambiguous etc. If we can't find recent mainstream academic sources that mention them, they're not notable. That's the consensus, that's been the consensus for years and, while it may change, you're going to have a hard job persuading a fairly active project that it should do and an even harder job explaining what this is all about to the many other people who simply sigh and hold their head in their hands when they see the word caste. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct that you have not convinced me on any of these. Nor will you convince me by saying the same thing repeatedly without actually proving information to explain why. ERven in the Raj sources report oral tradition, we still include tradition--and even mythology,as long as they are reported in sources.  DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I couldn't find any sources that verify that this is a caste or clan. --regentspark (comment) 17:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources are available to provide any reliable encyclopedic information about this topic. Sitush might like to make a user subpage with brief notes of key points regarding topics like this because the bureaucracy demands a reason for deletion. To me it looks like the reason is that no one has produced a source showing notability. Johnuniq (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some items in my userspace but there are only two or three incorrigible (for want of a better word) experienced contributors in this sphere and the fact that they are incorrigible, in defiance of numerous past explanations and outcomes, means creating such a thing is highly unlikely to sway their opinion. Their main concern usually ends up being (a) WP:SYSTEMIC and (b) IDHT regarding the topic area. The problem is that such interventions can lead to a "no consensus" outcome and, despite WP:BURDEN, the default at AfD is that no consensus = keep. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, but if there were a link in the nomination ("see here for background"), people like me would be in a better position to reach a decision, and better able to defend it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No RS makes it hard to ascertain the facts about this caste, if it does exist. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2017 (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.