Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatty (Community)


 * 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. S warm  ♠  21:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Gatty (Community)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seemingly non-notable caste (with none of its contemporaries having pages of their own and no external references), at a page unlikely to be searched often enough to warrant a redirect. Westroopnerd (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google Books search should at least show up some old colonial era coverage for any genuine Indian caste but even searching "Gatty, caste, India" in Google Books, News and Scholar turns up nothing but people with the surname Gatty, few of whom seem to be Indian and none of whom seem to be connected to this subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  03:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  09:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable, as stated above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indian castes have been thoroughly researched and documented. For example, the Jāti caste gets 357,000 google hits and 1,400 Google book hits. In comparison, this article gets no Google book hits. There's no indication that this is in any way notable or actually even exists. --Cagepanes (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Jāti is not itself a caste. -I think the GBooks issue is simply one of spelling - Gatty vs. Gatti etc, although the results seem still to be few, and very poor. Sitush (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -This community has a few mentions and a description in Google Books under the spelling "Gatti". Other information found here. ABF99 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Also, adding a news article here. So at least we know they exist, and are discussed in reliable independent sources. Another study of them here.
 * Keep and add to [|Category: Indian_castes].  Though small, there are enough references listed above to make them notable.  One of the benefits of including info such as this on Wikipedia is that a researcher doesn't have to go ferreting around in old Colonial anthropology books to find it. ABF99 (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as per comment of User:ABF99. He has also added some references in reference section of the article. I think there was confusion between "Gatty" and "Gatti". Both are same words and we should search both terms. Apart from sources given by ABF99, I will try to give some more sources. This is really great source. There is no reason why we should call any existing social group as "non-notable". -- Human 3015   TALK   01:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pinging who happens to have worked a lot in this subject. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking into this, thanks to the ping from . I have just removed one source - the "states" series of The People of India is unreliable. I've also removed an entire section because it was a copyright violation of this, which itself doesn't appear to be a great source - it makes some odd claims that seem to have their origin in Raj sources, it is published by an affiliated organisation, and its author is a nobody working at a very minor, local institution (nb: Indian academic posts sometimes derive from "dead men's shoes" and seniority in age/service rather than from merit). mentions another source aboves but that is published by Global Vision, whom we never accept as being reliable. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NB: ABF99 also mentions above the Joshua Project as a source. WP:RSN determined that to be unreliable aeons ago. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * may be incorrect to say that the community were ignored by Raj ethnologists. For example, the first paragraph here is reprinted in numerous books from the 1980s onwards and looks very much like Raj writing to me. James Tod also mentions them in connection with an area of Rajasthan, and they were mentioned here as a community from Saurashtra. Of course, none of these Raj writings are remotely reliable. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. But in nutshell what you want to say? This article should be "Kept" or "Deleted"? We are not finding reliable sources it doesn't mean that this article should be deleted. At least we can say that this caste do exists and as nominator is claiming in nomination there is no concept like "non-notable caste" in encyclopedia point of view. -- Human 3015   TALK   11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may misunderstand WP:GNG - we don't keep articles about any non-notable subject, and the main test for notability is whether or not they are discussed in several reliable independent sources. "Discussed" means not merely passing mentions etc, and mere existence does not equate to notability. I am still looking into this particular case. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to find anything substantive in independent sources etc and I now note that this community seems not to be recognised by the authorities either. I say that because they are neither a Scheduled Caste nor an Other Backwards Class in Karnataka. This means that, by a process of elimination, they would have to be a Forward class ... and FCs are usually well-documented by virtue of superior education/opportunity/contacts. I really do think this is probably an ongoing attempt to create/define a new community, with Wikipedia being used as one means of doing so/legitimising it. That has been the story of the last 120 years or so, with the number of castes identified around 1900 growing by around 700 before the 21st century ended. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment-I'm glad that some users with knowledge of Indian ethnography are taking a look at this. Just wanted to add that the study included as a reference also cites other sources discussing the Gatti that could be investigated as to their reliability. I think the diverse spellings and relatively small internet coverage have made it more challenging to find reliable sources in the usual places. ABF99 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mentioned that reference and noted the sources listed in it. It really doesn't look good to me. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Invoke WP:IAR if needed, but this seems like one of those why the encyclopedia exists kind of articles.  Some sources: gatty  news portal, Joshua Project, Castes and Tribes of Southern India (volume 2).  I admit none of those are the kind of strong sources we normally require for WP:GNG, but as I said, IAR.  Surely, if we can have thousands of stupid articles about obscure pokémon, porn performers, third-rate footballers, and other meaningless pop culture, we can have this article about a historical ethnic group .  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * struck my !vote, per argument below -- RoySmith (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a dreadful rationale. With don't keep stuff because other things exist. If you want to nominate obscure Pokemon articles etc for deletion then feel free to do so. Your sources are also useless - is anyone actually reading what I've said above? How many of you are aware of sanskritisation and how many can explain why it is this community that is supposedly from Karnataka in south India has seemingly had mentions in northern India? The lack of decent sources is tending to suggest that we might end up misinforming the reader, which is worse than saying nothing at all. Gatty News, by the way, is pointless: we do not use sources affiliated to castes etc because they are not independent and because we already know that the process of fission and fusion among Indic communities is an ongoing socio-political battle that depends at its outset on some small group of people deciding that they either want to be different or want to pretend to be something else in order to gain an advantage. Using affiliated sources gives credence to something that often is not accepted by wider society, a classic example of which is the Bhumihar claim to Brahmin status. While the Bhumihars are well documented, it is looking increasingly as if the Gattis are not. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I freely admit that my opinion is not based in policy (hence the reference to WP:IAR. I also freely admit to not being an expert in Indian culture.  I found a marriage site where women are presenting themselves as members of the Gatti caste.  And here's a blog post.  And another article.  So while it may not meet the formal definition of being a caste, it at least appears that there is some group of people who self-identify as being Gatti, and that seems worth mentioning.  I also agree that OTHERSTUFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article; I was just expressing my frustration about the amount trivia we cover.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding more trivia, based on crap sources, doesn't improve the situation. Indic community articles of this type are regularly deleted, as are many that turn out to the clans, subcastes and the like. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2015 (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.