Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous Jats


 * 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. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

List of famous Jats
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.

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 since quite 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 and list of Pakistan-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT QuiteUnusual 13:37, 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 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Rename - List of Jats . Perhaps as a fork (not a POV fork) of the Jats article.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


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

--Sbei78 20:53, 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 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 03:07, 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 21:29, 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)
 * The existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good Keep Jat is a important caste with important royality, politicians and decorated military personel. Lot of these these people are in the government or the army. Its either a harmless list or caste based categories--Pethj 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: The user has a total of 37 edits. utcursch | talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the reason for AFD nomination. I have not nominated this article for deletion because I consider Jats non-notable. 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 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong confident Keep there are many lists of peoples which are not cited and if this list is deleted then they must ALSO be deleted for that reason e.g. List of English people, List of Scots, List of Welsh people, List of British Asians, List of Northern Ireland people, so not valid reason. Moreoever, the statement nobody has bothered to provide a single citation is completely wrong because there has been citings added for verification list.--Vickop 00:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: The user has a total of 26 edits. utcursch | talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement is not wrong because the process began after nomination deletion. Providing four citations for such a long list is not enough, in my opinion. utcursch | talk 03:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of your opinion the citation process has already begun and will be increased. --Pethj 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Is Citation really needed for such things. If we go on like this, the some one may even ask citation to show that Abdul Kalam is Muslim and Manmohan Singh Sikh.   Doctor Bruno    07:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Citations are needed whenever they are demanded -- the burden on evidence is on the contributors. I won't probably demand citations if this were a List of Indians, List of English people or List of Scots (unless there was some obvious flaw in the list). But this list is more like Famous Middle-Class Americians or List of famous Rednecks. By the way, there have been discussions on whether Abdul Kalam is a Muslim or not (please see respective talk page). utcursch | talk 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good Keep, I am afraid I don't agree with utcursch subjective opinion (sorry :-)) but the list a good keep.--Pethj 11:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is user's second vote. utcursch | talk 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Comment,That wasn’t a second vote; I was just reiterating my original position (one vote). Moreover, it is highly arrogant of utcursch trying to belittle any user who disagrees with his point. I think it shows someone who is highly insecure and can’t handle anyone having a different opinion to him. It's amazing how whenever someone disagrees with him, he tries to belittle the members’ opinion through introducing things to question the person reputation, it shows someone who is very insecure within himself about people having a different opinion to him (almost fascist/extreme or intolerant).--Pethj 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see No personal attacks. utcursch | talk 02:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you also see and read again No personal attacks.--Pethj 02:04, 25 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 or at the VERY least, Rename to List of Jats. The word "famous" is inherently POV, as has been discussed many times in the past.  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—if those lists are bad too, they should be proposed for deletion as well.  We don't keep spam merely because there is spam that has yet to be deleted.  If the list is kept (and renamed), strict criteria for inclusion should be listed.  But I find the precedents cited by Utcursch compelling.  Categories are better than lists, IMO, for situations like this, because the inclusion criteria can more easily be discussed on a case-by-case basis that way.  Xtifr tälk 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:15, 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 22:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Solid Keep I don't see anything really wrong with the article. I think all it needs is abit of a cleanup. The points raised against it are POV at best, its a solid article, the alteration by Ohconfucius only makes it more solid. James smith2 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have seen the list and have edited it many times,the list to me sounds pretty much authentic except a few names perhaps,especially that nishan e haider thing was not true..

Although most of the names are verifyable..may be the names underdispute s can be delted until a link is provided..
 * Keep The list contains notable persons who have done works which brought social changes in the society. We can feel proud of them. Names from the list which can not be verified may be deleted but not the complete list. Deleting the list will serve no purpose. List at one place can serve as an index if one needs to see some entry. We can think of renaming it as List of notable Jats to avoid POV. I strongly feel to Keep. burdak 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the question is not whether these people deserve to appear in a list on Wikipedia; the question is whether "Jat" is a verifiable category under which they can appear. Relisting these people by region might be more appropriate.  Xtifr tälk 21:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Burdak.Shyamsunder 5:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Please clean up and add referencesRaveenS 19:09, 31 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.