Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Andhra Pradesh


 * 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. Deleting just this one article, since it's not clear whether all of the articles were bundled into the nomination, and none of the other articles had AfD templates on them for the duration of this discussion. Also, AfD participants are reminded that they should only make one bolded vote per AfD. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 18:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Andhra Pradesh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am unsure whether this new article Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Andhra Pradesh really serves any useful purpose. It is a straight copy from the official list. That list is available online, is cited in articles, and its content is liable to change from time to time because the reservation system (a form of positive discrimination) is in constant flux. If we are going to start adding articles based entirely on a single primary source then our count will grow dramatically and without adding anything to information that is already available in a single authoritative public document. Sitush (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see that the user has created many articles such as this - eg: Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Haryana - and seems rarely to respond to comments on their talk page despite a prolific number of queries being posted there. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Further examples, all created by the same person:
 * Central List of Other Backward Classes in Rajasthan
 * Central List of Other Backward Classes Uttar Pradesh
 * Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Gujarat
 * Central List of Other Backward Classes of Bihar
 * Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Punjab
 * Central List of Other Backward Classes in Delhi
 * Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Haryana
 * Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Madhya Pradesh
 * Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Jammu and Kashmir
 * Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of West Bengal
 * Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Himachal Pradesh
 * State List of Other Backward Classes of Bihar
 * State List of Other Backward Classes for the State of West Bengal
 * State List of Other Backward Classes in Delhi
 * State List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Rajasthan
 * List of Scheduled Castes in Punjab
 * And then we have articles such as List of Scheduled Castes in Haryana that also appear to be of dubious merit. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I am not sure why you have nominated this deletion. Many of the communities and classes refered to also have articles. It is a quick and easy reference. Not sure by what is meant by dubious merit. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I have slightly refactored the above comment's formatting to prevent it from breaking the layout of the AFD index. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)




 * Comment: would these lists fall under WP:LIST? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

- Sitush (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * keep i think it's under WP:INCST.Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments @ Bhavinkundaliya - I am unsure of the relevance in referring to an inactive Wikiproject that was begun by a known POV pusher. @ WALTHAM2: they add nothing except maintenance overhead (the lists change). These articles are just a copy/paste of official documents that are in any case cited directly when required, ie: in articles about the specific communities. Since we cannot rely on the content in these articles as a source for other articles, there is little point in keeping them. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * means, all articles mention above should be delete as group deletion? Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Struck by Sitush - you do not get to !vote twice I object to the character assination, what do you mean by known POV pusher. If have a genuine argument, state it. Please retract this. I have try very hard to get as many sources as I can. Sitush has never once responded to various messages left on his talk page. As editors with mutual interest, it would be lot healthier to have dialogue.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked Waltham2 to retract their allegation. I did not call Waltham2 a pov pusher, nor have any reason to do so. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I will retract. We all want a scholarly discussion. But please everyone, no one personal comments. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleteas per Sitush concerns and these lists are dubious at best.obc lists are a big problem.some castes as a whole are considered forward by central government but state governments have given obc status due to political considerations.there is also the issue of only a subacaste being given obc status while the said caste as a whole is forward.such lists try to simplify this complex issue. Linguistic ''' Geek 14:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 *  Tentative Delete. This is relevant information, so I'm not saying we shouldn't use it. However, if it is just a direct copy of official govt sources, and those sources are changing, it would seem to me to be just as useful, and a lot more reliable, to just use external links to the govt sources themselves - keeping our own copies of dynamic govt sources seems like a bit of a maintenance nightmare. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * delete all - per Linguisticgeek but mainly per WP:NOTREPOSITORY #3 and WP:NPS - it is not the business of an encyclopedia to reproduce source documents available elsewhere. The risk is that our article becomes out of date if the original changes. We should link to documents like this from the relevant articles, not reproduce them. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not for reproducing source documents verbatim, especially if they are liable to change.  Sandstein   05:42, 27 April 2012 (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.