Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatars(God) born as Rajput


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Avatars(God) born as Rajput

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Rajput word is used no where in sanskrit literature.They are later addition to indian society.Some of them descendant from Huna, Gurjara hordes whereas some from aboriginals.Rajput and many other castes clains descendant from God rama that doesn't means God Rama was rajput or else.

For more info visit (famous historian V. A. smith) :http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8XXGhAL1WKcC&pg=PA413&dq R Mkrestin (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, poorly copyedited, unreferenced, and of dubious value. Plus it would appear the claims are highly contested, and the only "sources" are other WP articles, which, incidentally, don't appear to support the assertion of Rajput ties in many cases. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:OR, unreferenced and notability issues.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: -- . Shlok  talk. 06:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as pseudohistory/original research. utcursch | talk 08:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. Rabbabodrool (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone has an objection to word Rajput : the Title name can be changed to List of Avatars(God) born in Kshatriya or List of Avatars(God) born in Royal Families. As far a I understand the list is comprehensive and should not be deleted. As far as I understand the reason for asking deletion, is objection to word Rajput and not the content of the article by original proposer. Although, in India all Rajput claim their descant from Kshatriya.R P Jethwa (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not so much any of the above, so much as it's totally unreferenced. You can't use Wikipedia articles as references (which the current article, bafflingly, does).  Setting aside a few other issues of notability, in order to have such a list you'd need clear footnotes for each name, going to a reputed academic source (not a blog, fansite, forum) clearly indicating that said avatar was born as a Rajput.  Your question somewhat confuses me though;  how could changing the title to "Kshatriya" help things?  There are plenty of Kshatriya who are not Rajput, yes?  Then how would the list still be valid, unless it's already including non-Kshatriya? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi!! Matthew, what I was trying to clarify was that Mkrestin has put deletion notice citing objection to use of word Rajput. He has been editing all articles, removing the word Rajput wherever it is used by anyone and deleting or editing without any logic. See : ,Bachal Deletion request, removed the image of Lord Rama from articles like Bachal, Jayas. Are there any administrator sitting up there taking notice of this vandalism going on in wikipedia. Further, all I was trying to say was that whoever created the page may not have the idea, about wikipedia guidelines. But since list is exhaustive and can be useful for someone researching on India & Hinduism related topic, to save it, maybe, it can also be made or shifted to a Category : [[List of Avatars(God) born in Royal Families]] of Category : List of Indian Gods born in Raoyal families, if not as a page so that article remains as a category. However, it is up to community to decide the fate of article. I just wanted to give my opinion. Ever since I have became a wikipedian, I have come to understand that, there are many persons, who want to prove their point of view and Wikipedia is becoming like internet game, where anyone can come play, prove their point, fight and go away. Sometimes, there are gang of persons involved, one proposes deletion, another seconds it. Sometimes, same person uses several accounts to make it's voice heard. As far as Rajput & Kshatriya theory is concerned : I believe all Rajput are Kshatriya, if not vice-versa. And if someone, wants to say Rajput are not Kshatriyas, then he must give genuine links to such an original idea. Maybe he could re-write history of Indian sub-continent.R P Jethwa (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, this has nothing to do with whether Rajputs are Kshatriya. Nor does it have anything to do with how wide or narrow the title of the list is.  The primary issue is that we have a huge list of names with no proof/evidence whatsoever that these avatars were (in a given belief system) born into Rajput/Kshatriya/royal families.  What the list would need is a footnote on each name to, say, an academic work in GoogleBooks which has a sentence which explicitly says "Avatar so-and-so was believed to be an incarnation of God XYZ, and was born the the Foosale Rajput royal family of Fooistan".  Otherwise we'll get people wading in adding random names, deleting names because "HE WASN'T BORN IN A RAJPUT FAMILY!!!", and nobody will be able to counterargue since there's no evidence given. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: in an attempt to at least improve the title, I've moved it to List of Hindu avatars born as Rajputs, which is at least clearer.  Please correct if "Hindu" is too specific.  But the primary problem with the article still stands.  I've deleted the list of "sources" as other WP articles do not qualify as sources;  sources must be external reputable works. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As i already said, many communities claim descent from God Rama, doesn't mean God Rama was from those communities.Due to the same reason i removed image of God Rama from those pages.About Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raghav Rajkul.png, i wrote that nowhere word Rajput is used for God Rama, which is right.That's why that file has no meaning.

Bachal article was a lot copy paste from Sisodia article that's why i put that notice.I request to the fellow editors to check the list mentioned at the end of this article as they seems to have no link with Bachal clan except last inline links.Mkrestin (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Update:The file Raghav_Rajkul.png is of importance because it shows how the present day Rajput communities have derived their name like Kushwah Rajput getting their name from Kush son of Rama, and other rajput dyansty being attached to family of Lav. The word Rajput in the above  is neither used for Lord Rama or King Love or King Kush. The file gives an easy idea to anyone that why so many Rajput or Kshatriya claim descant Rama or to be Raghuvanshi or Suryavanshi. Similar, case can be found in Yaduvanshi lineage, where many Rajput claim to be descandant of Krishna  of Chandravanshi/Yadu dynasty.R P Jethwa (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: I dug up some references for the Rajput article, and per a scholarly ref there's not mention of Rajputs as a social entity until the 6th century AD.  So categorising anyone pre-600 as "Rajput" appears to be historical revisionism, which seems a good reason to delete the article.  MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi!!. Going one step further I have renamed the pageList of Hindu avatars born as Kshatriyas, as Rajput would be inappropriate looking at historical background. As far as your question Hindu is too specific, looking at the list it contains lot of name of Jain religion. Let the community take debate further.R P Jethwa (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Further, in many of the edits user Mkrestin has given edit summary as '''use of word Rajput & Kshatriya together is not proper. They are different...'''. And removed word Rajput. IF that is so he should be bold enough to remove the first line The Rajput are one of the major social groups of India, historically associated with the Kshatriya martial caste in Hindu society. from Rajput page. and let us see the floodgates open.R P Jethwa (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again you misinterpreting my edits.Rajput may be part of Kshatriya varna but using Rajput or Kshatriya as synonym is not appropriate.As user:MatthewVanitas has provided reference that rajput word is of around 6th AD but Kshatriya word is very old.About this article, i don't think such type of lists make any sense.After sometime it will be filled with lot of unreferenced content like other such type of articles.Thank you Mkrestin (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not have any personal bias against you or any one. If you thought article was bad in taste than Deletion policy cites alternative to deletion by editing, or giving proper reason for deletion and not reasons like Rama was not a Rajput. Becasue, the page contains rathar more names of Jain Tirthankar rathar than Hindu Gods. I have my-self removed the image of Lord Rama from this page as I thought it to be of no use here. All I was trying to say was that deletion is easy but if page can be improved and saved it is rather good. Same is the case with File:Raghav_Rajkul.png, which has no criteria for deletion. If u r saying Ram was not Rajput, that is okay but what about many clans claiming descant from Raghukul.R P Jethwa (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2010 (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.