Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central List of Other Backward Classes in Rajasthan


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Central List of Other Backward Classes in Rajasthan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This group nomination follows from the recent precedent for a similar article here. These articles serve no useful purpose. They are straight copies from official lists. Those lists are available online, are cited in articles, and have content that 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 single primary sources then our count will grow dramatically and without adding anything to information that is already available in the authoritative public documents. We are not a repository for transcriptions of primary sources. Sitush (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:


 * I agree with Sitush, delete all. No benefit in mirroring a single public primary source, and I doubt anyone would put forth the effort to keep them in-sync with that source. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned in my nomination that a contrary argument in the earlier deletion discussion seemed to me to be suggesting that a centralised article here on Wikipedia would be a useful reference point. My response was that we cannot rely on the content of article A at WP as a source for article B. If have mis-stated that argument then please feel free to say so - the format of the discussion was a bit messy. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we have one common list? Stating whether people of certain caste exist in a particular state; if yes whether they are listed in Backward Classes or what. If we dont know whether they exist or not in a particular state, we can, may be, leave some blank space there. (Chances are that we might have lotsa blank spaces as ref to negative info of absence of something is hard to get.) Clubbed article would be good to have. It then wont be just copy paste. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It still would add absolutely nothing to the sum of knowledge and it would be synthesis because not all states even agree on spellings/who belongs to what community etc, which is actually a classic reason why we deprecate primary sources. It would also most likely end up as a table, and we all know just how difficult people find wikitables and just how much vandalism and disruption goes on by anons to India-related articles. It would be a pointless exercise in reproducing primary sources that would actually be even more of a nightmare to maintain than the existing articles noted above. The creator of these articles spends a lot of time creating (usually rather poor quality) new articles based on gutting a single source and then usually abandons the effort, but this particular series is just plain unnecessary. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete All. per Sitush and Gorman. Linguistic ''' Geek 05:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't believe that lists like List of Star Trek characters are acceptable, while lists with links to backward and Scheduled communities and castes are not considered encyclopedic. The mind boggles. It disappoints on the lack of articles on Asia, Africa and the Middle East and while wikepedia SEEMS to be inundated with articles on Tolkien and Star Trek characters.


 * Once again Sitush has begun his character assassination. "creator of these articles spends a lot of time creating (usually rather poor quality) new articles based on gutting a single source and then usually abandons the effort". Please retract.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please read WP:OSE. Secondly, it is not "once again" and it is a statement of fact, not a character assassination. I recently spent a considerable amount of time cleaning up numerous stubs that you have created. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 05:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete all as per nom. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  Speedy KEEP the castes stated would not be summarised or known other wise ,and stating the backward classes is not related to getting any reservation from the government same as with list of iyers Shrikanthv (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. You nominated List of Iyers for deletion & the consensus (including my opinion) recently went against you, but I cannot understand why you are referring to it here. Have you seen List of Indian castes, the various categories of Indian social groups etc? While far from perfect in their present form, they have the potential to address the first part of your comment, ie: that "the castes stated would not be summarised or known other wise".. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Maybe a web link in the "#See also" for each State in India for each official list but even that is questionable under WP:LINKFARM.. These lists are not encyclopedic, don't belong in WP. DocTree (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP all -- the topic is clearly encyclopedic and has plenty of notability and sources. The fact that the particular user who created this page has a history of less than stellar work, or that maintaining India-related articles free from vandalism is difficult, is completely irrelevant. This is exactly the type of information that people expect an encyclopedia to provide, and our current pages about caste in india are woefully inadequate.
 * 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.