Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jadav


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Jadav

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No substantial meaningful content, and may not meet notability guidelines Mopswade (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - This name is primarily associated with various people rather than a community. Examples include Jadav Payeng and Kishore Jadav. The article may be worth keeping as a disambiguation page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not clean up. A little bit of BEFORE, please. Look at the history of the article – almost five years old. I suspect because this is caste-related this has led to a rather unstable history.  Nevertheless, secondary source discussion here  ; passes GNG. I suspect related to, if not the same as, Jatav, but need a discussion for merge first, not delete. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * your source is unreliable per long-standing consensus. There have been discussions about that series of publications at numerous venues, including WP:RSN. It is also not a synonym for Jatav but I think I have seen it as an alternate spelling for Yadav. Sitush (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly admit to being unaware of earlier discussion regarding this particular source, although nothing on the page cited indicates notably dubious claims; precursory searches show between the Yadav, Jadav and Jatav a great deal of overlap - accounting for migration, it would not be surprising that these converge in a common source and differences in spelling can be accounted for by differences in language (ie transliteration via two or three different languages). FWIW - more sourcing: described as a rising caste, Phaneeshwar Nath refers to the Jadav in context of describing conflicts amongst the castes of Patna, Irfan Habib refers to a subordinated caste Hindu farmer named Jadav in late 16th Century Gujarat.


 * I reiterate - I don't have an answer to what is correct, ethnography of caste is far from a specialty area for me, but should this be cleaned up? Yes. Redirected? Quite possibly. Deleted? No. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This seems possibly relevant for the purposes of a redict, Kunbi, although all citations are to the source indicates is unreliable. Thoughts?--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just clearing things up... It is suggested that the Mahratta clan of Jadavs are descended from the Yadavas. but beyond similarity of name there is nothing to support this theory. There was a class of shepherds called the Yadavas, and there is as much, if not greater, probability in the Jadavs being descended from them. It is also worthy of note that no surname corresponding to Jadav has been pointed out among the ancient Rajput families. lb is stated in the Satara Gazetteer that "as far as is known the Devagiri Yadavas passed from the south northwards, and it is possible they were not northerners but southerners, Kurubars or other shepherds, who, under Brahman influence, adopted the great northern shepherd name of Yadav." Madras High Court Maharaja Of Kolhapur vs S. Sundaram Ayyar And Ors. on 21 January 1924.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We can't use court rulings, and especially not the ones governed by the scientific racism of the Raj era. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * as a general point, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Second, specific to this, I should clearly have made my   comment more explicit, mea culpa. I was only trying to emphasise the difficulty in clarifying the exact nature of the group we are talking about and who they are; the scientific racism of the structures of British imperialism does not discount from the point that the term is being used at various points to describe a caste of people. Should one be cautious with this and the Anthropological Survey of India as sources? Absolutely! (I don't disagree with any of the points made here or here where the consensus of the discussion suggests "judicious" use of ASoI materials).  But does it provide some information potentially helpful to the discussion *at hand* of what we should do with this article? Possibly. At this point in time, after what I have seen so far, my suggestion would be for a redirect to the Kunbi...do you have a view on that? Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, my view is don't do it because it is plain wrong to speculate when there are at least two claims to this name and likely three or more, for none of which do we really have solid support - caste is what I mostly do here & we'll just add to the horrendous problems, including death threats, already common in the topic area. We could convert to a dab page but even that will attract the idiotic & in past AfDs has been rejected because notability isn't there.
 * My issue with the courts, and the specific series of ANSI books you mention, is mainly scientific racism, not WP:PRIMARY. If you haven't heard of, say, H. H. Risley then I suspect it might be worth a read for background info. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion is verging away from the issue at hand. There are sources, of varying degrees of reliability, although the majority I have cited would be considered reliable, which point to Jadav existing as a caste name. At the same time, I think it's reasonable to indicate that the weight of reliable sourcing is not sufficiently conclusive. Despite 's reluctance, I would support converting this to a disambiguation page pointing to Yadav, Jatav and Kunbi. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Which are the reliable sources? And please don't say the states series of The People of India, which just plagiarised the Raj era sources. - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * More specifically, which are the RS for a link to Jatav? I am on mobile and struggling to read stuff but if there is nothing for that then things get awkward because we do not do dab pages when there are only two possibilities - IAR may need to be invoked but the dab specialists get very uptight about this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A further thought, sorry. The article could be a dab for people bearing the name as well as for the communities it could represent. It is quite a common name, as I think is mentioned above. The set-index route gets round any potential issue with guidance for dab pages, although I'm still reluctant about including the castes because it really does open the floodgates to the most tenuous of connections, the name is seemingly not notable in respect of those castes, & we have enough maintenance problems with existing caste dabs & redirects (please don't say that will be fixed over time because it won't & the suggestion just demonstrates lack of clue about the topic area and the long-term pattern of editor involvement - it has been open warfare for a couple of centuries, so WP is just going to reflect that, not change it). - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Although most agree that it should be kept, redirection vs. disambiguation haven't been addressed.
 * Keep - reliable sources are available and I will expand it (just started). We can have a dabhat for any synonyms, some potentials being noted above). - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep My understanding here is, it has been established that this is a group different from all the others mentioned. Kunbi Jadavs, according to the article, hail from three districts in Maharastra. The Yadav article is basically a DAB which needs to clarify all the different groups that use the word "Yadav" and create separate articles for each, if, after and when the scholars get around to the task. Jatavs are apparently subgroups of Chamars, and hail from Uttar Pradesh. The article under discussion, however, is about a group from Gujarat+Rajasthan. That being the case, it merits a standalone article without being required to meet WP:GNG at the outset. DABs might be helpful, which can be created at Jadav (disambiguation) for the topics, and at Jadav (name) for a list of peoples sharing the name assuming they are not at or can't be added to Jadhav. Use hatnotes as necessary. Those problems are not for AFD. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:48, 6 May 2020 (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.