Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Modern Day Rajputs


 * 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. In this case consensus to delete is clear. Similar articles by the same nominator have been kept as consensus was not as clear. --Ezeu 19:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Famous Modern Day Rajputs
Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.

The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list. 7 On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list. The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing for a long time, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV.

Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time. Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not.

Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not able to understand why this is not verifiable.   Doctor Bruno    13:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Rajput is a martial caste. Nearly all of these people are in the government or the army. Its either a harmless list or caste based categories (which sadly to say have already been created).Bakaman Bakatalk 16:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason for deletion is not "Rajputs are not notable". The reason is: Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc. utcursch | talk 03:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Rajputs - per utcursh's logic.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Delete this one as listcruft, but categorize this list as Category:Famous Rajputs or Category:Rajput people. -- Ageo020 ( Talk  •  Contribs ) 17:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:

--Sbei78 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * List of Scientologists
 * List of famous left-handed people
 * List of English people
 * List of Iranians
 * List of Hispanics
 * List of Scientologists
 * List of famous left-handed people
 * List of English people
 * List of Iranians
 * List of Hispanics
 * List of English people
 * List of Scots
 * List of Welsh people
 * List of Northern Ireland people
 * List of Cornish people
 * List of Black Britons
 * List of British Asians
 * List of British Jews
 * Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.

--Sbei78 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * List of English people (not cited)
 * List of Scots (not cited)
 * List of Welsh people (not cited)
 * List of British Asians (not cited)
 * List of Northern Ireland people (not cited)


 * Wikipedia is not always consistent; the existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. Moreover, verifiability is very important. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't it verifiability is very important for List of English people (not cited) List of Scots (not cited) List of British Asians (not cited) List of Northern Ireland people (not cited) Then why they are not AFDed ??? If some one is very particular and wants reference to say that Abdul Kalam us Muslim and Manmohan Singh Siks, he/she should get all those articles for AFD and not just India related articles alone. Why the above lists are not listed under Articles for deletion ???. Can some one who is very particular about Verifiability explain this bias    Doctor Bruno    08:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that your analogy is flawed. List of Northern Ireland people, List of English people or List of Scots is more like List of Indians. A list of Famous Bhumihars or List of famous Nairs is more like Famous Middle-Class Americians or List of famous Rednecks. If you need to verify the lists that you've mentioned, you are welcome to put tags (or even move them to deletion, if you are very sure that those lists are unverifiable) -- the burden of evidence falls on the contributors. Please don't complain of systemic bias here. This AFD nomination was by an Indian editor (me), who has not got enough expertise on subjects like Scots and English people. By the way, there have been discussions on whether Abdul Kalam is a Muslim or not (please see respective talk page). utcursch | talk 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not some one who wants this article to be deleted. If that be the case I will definitely bring an AFD. In my opinion those lists as well as these list are verifiable. I am not comprehending your analogy. As far as I know List of French people and List of Japanese are like List of Indians (Country) Where as List of Northern Ireland people or List of Scots are like List of Rajputs or List of Pandits etc. If you are keeping one, keep every thing. If you are deleting one delete every thing   Doctor Bruno    14:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete If members of this caste have Wikipedia articles in their own right, then link via a category if the membership is documented in the article. The list would by definition be incomplete.Edison 16:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No real criteria for inclusion; no sourcing. As an organized and structured list it is better than the precedents were, but not good enough in my eyes.  The various sublists might each stand without the Rajput limitation (I.e. List of Param Vir Chakra winners might stand.)  Also, as for the presence of other lists, see Inclusion is not an indicator of notability.  GRBerry 15:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom or Rename to List of Modern Day Rajputs. The word "famous" is inherently POV, as has been discussed many times before.  There is no way this list should be allowed to remain with its current name.  And there are far too many indiscriminate, unverifiable lists on WP already. The argument that we should have more bad lists because of existing bad lists is futile per GRBerry.  We don't keep spam just because there are other spam articles that have yet to be deleted.  I find the precedents cited by nom compelling, and think deletion is the best option.  Conversion to category is possible too (maybe even preferable to renaming), but the word "famous", in any case, absolutely must go!  Xtifr tälk 20:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment step in the right direction, but for me, the real deciding factor is, "castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources." To me, that puts it right in the same category as List of middle-class people or List of rednecks, and not in the same category as verifiable lists like List of Scientologists or List of Welsh people.  Xtifr tälk 22:34, 26 October 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.