Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dholbajja


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dholbajja
Google search yeilds zero results, has been tagged unreferenced for months, and it seems could well be an attack page as well as the  significant protests since its creation. In short, Delete - Glen Stoll e ry 09:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No vote. Delete per Srikeit. I'm not entirely sure here. Looking at this, it would appear the town really does exist in the Kawardha district (you need to scroll down to the dho's). Likewise a simple search for "Dholbajja" returns 57 hits. I don't know, possible nn-hoax and as Stollery said, possible attack, but I'm no expert on the matter. If this is an inflammatory Indian phrase, I hope that some Wikipedian must speak Indian the local language and be able to translate it. That may change my opinion. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment though Daniel, if you remove WP and its clones (answers.com etc) from that 57 you're effectively left with a school and gibberish? Why risk it IMO, the author can always come back at WP:V his work after all. - Glen Stoll e ry 09:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, I dropped a note on User:Srikeit's talk page, and I'll likely trust whatever his opinion is. For some reason, I'm not particularly pursuaded by the protest that's been raised as I get the impression this is all one user, though I'm not making any allegations at all. You're right on the WP:V argument though, if there are only a handful of questionable sites that can even confirm its existence, then perhaps this is an article we really don't need around. Anyway, awaiting the response of Srikeit (or another established contributor with knowledge and insight into the country). AmiDaniel (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I'll first of all start off with a translation of the word. "Dhol" means a drum (the musical instrument) (also called Dholak) & "bajja" means player. So "Dholbajja" roughly translates to "drum player". Now there seem to be two separate versions created about the word in the article, one about a village (which is the article's current version) & a caste. Now the village most probably does exist (although I couldn't locate it on Google Earth or the Encarta Atlas) but seems to be thoroughly non-notable as there are no less than a million such quite insignificant villages in India & the state of Madhya Pradesh itself having several thousands. As for the caste, although I have never heard of it, may exist. Although it may be a colloquial slur to certain people living in the particular area. But there are no credible ways of verifying that. So this article can be deleted on the basis of being unverifiable, non-notable & being a possible attack page. --Srikeit (Talk 10:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Srikeit. --Gurubrahma 07:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Now, listen, gentlemen. I am the one who applied for its deletion and let me explain why. Dholbajja literally means drum-player but it's a profession taken up by one of the lowest castes of India, Chamar. The Chamars are shoemakers but the word Chamar has become an ethnic slur and it's very common to abuse someone by calling him/her a 'Chamar'.
 * Now, the main point is that this article Dholbajja was created to attack an influential upper caste, Bhumihar. This article first claimed that the Bhumihars are Dholbajja but I found it fale and derogatory so I edited it to its current version (geographical locations) only to save it from getting reverted back to the false version.
 * Remember, there is no subcaste of Bhumihars called Dholbajja so I think this article must be deleted as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.41.178 (talk • contribs) 19 June 2006.


 * Delete as unverifiable/hoax/non-notable, possible attack page assuming 59.94.41.178 is correct (in which case it's speedily deletable). —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-20 07:41Z 
 * Why it has not been deleted yet? Is everyone sleeping? I think enough has been explained here. Don't you see that this page is not at all expanding and will never ever expand? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.43.188 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Please calm down. There's no need to get too zealous about this--let the AfD run its course. Currently there is no precedent for speedily deleting hoaxes. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per excellent argument raised by Srikeit. -- Samir  धर्म 09:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete absolutely non-notable, although I don't think it is an attack page. Nearly Headless Nick 13:07, 23 June 2006 (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.