Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous Nairs (3rd nomination)


 * 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. The article does not violate any policies, it has been renamed as suggested by some, and the criteria for inclusion is implicit, as is the case with similar lists. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

List of famous Nairs
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 over a year now, 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 08:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note:I dont think either the Telugu Brahmins nor the Reddys were ever written about in the Lusiad or the Enclycopedia Britannica Ivygohnair 16:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a place for discrimination against any groups of people either Ivygohnair 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no discrimination here. I've is no doubt on notability of Nairs. The article on Nairs is not on deletion. utcursch | talk 14:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing new to add from what I said last time. Tintin (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT QuiteUnusual 13:38, 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) (1) . 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 10:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) (Just like Devan Nair (the former President of Singapore) is Singaporean. That doesn't mean they (Mira Nair and Devan Nair) are both not Nairs)Justice4us 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. Many Nairs don't have the Nair surname and are as opposed to the terrible caste system as you are. But you can't use this to justify deletion because a lot of Jewish people also have non-jewish names.Justice4us 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:INN (This is an essay. It is not a policy or guidelineIvygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No way to verify the list. Almost 500-600 people are there on the list and most have red links on them. I would rather prefer this was categorized as Category:Nair peole or anything like that. -- Ageo020 ( Talk  •  Contribs ) 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Strong Keep So a Jew wants to delete our page. Impossible.   Don't underestimate Nairs.  Delete List of Famous Jews first.  Dakshayani 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Note: The user has a total of 3 edits.
 * See WP:INN (This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)).


 * Hey, I think this is an unacceptable racist comment and I wonder whether it is not  really put up by those who are obsessed with "delete" to discredit the supporters of this list. Frankly if all kinds of people, including the Jews, who like the Nairs are  scattered all over the world (the word diaspora was first coined for the jewish people) are allowed to have their list in peace (which is also not perfectly verifiable by the above standards), I don't see why the Nairs can't!Justice4us 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC).


 * To Dakshayani: Please see WP:INN (This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)) . By the way I'm not a Jew. utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC


 * what is racial is asserting (on a space provided to create an encyclopedia) the right for a state to exist on the basis of religion on illegally occupied lands.Dakshayani 07:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know whose side you are on and why you are in this discussion at all! Your crude outburst against the jewish people will only get knee jerk reactions from otherwise neutral admins and users to vote "delete". You can call the Nairs a lot of things but certainly never "stupid" nor "crude". I should know, I am married to a Nair! So you should choose another forum for your invectives, pleaseIvygohnair 16:02, 30 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 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment List of English people or any other nationality or religion related lists are quite easy to verify. Most people stay in their own mother countries, or were born there, or talk about it all the time. Eg:Scientologists. But verifying Nairs will be a nightmare, since most people don't talk about their castes at all. Delete by Wiki Verifiability-- Ageo020 ( Talk  •  Contribs ) 03:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No criteria for inclusion, no sourcing. WP:INN (This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)) tells us that the presence of other lists that may or may not be in good shape is irrelevant to whether this should be kept.  GRBerry 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


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

--Sbei78 21:21, 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 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 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think to be fair, what is more important is to consider whether what this user is saying makes sense or not, and not use technicalities to silence or discredit him/her.Justice4us 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

--Sbei78 21:29, 22 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.
 * 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. See WP:INN (This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)) . utcursch | talk 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, more than one article were cited above (actually five). We are talking about double standards here. Of course if other similiar articles exist it is very suspicious why we are picking on the Nairs!Justice4us 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:INN (This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)) . utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Rename - List of Nairs . Bakaman Bakatalk 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom or Rename per Bakaman. 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 20:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:16, 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 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong, Strong keep I think this is really an obsession with some people on the delete side and I don't think "obsessions" are to be encouraged on a free site like Wikipedia. Please see the discussion of  another AfD case.  If other lists of people exist, I don't see why the list of Nairs (renamed) should not exist.  BTW the Nairs are not neccessary a caste and are really quite famous as a people for they are featured in The Lusiad the National Epic of Portugal published in 1523 and also you can find a write-up of them in the Encyclopedia Britannica.Justice4us 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Justice4us (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Wikipedia has an article on Nairs too. I don't have any problem with Nair article. 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)-- (Is this a favourable vote from a user?  Admin should show the IP address if this user did not sign in properly).Ivygohnair 16:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That was me utcursch | talk 14:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC).


 * I vote for Keep because I don't think the "Nairs" should be singled out for deletion while other "lists" remain.Ivygohnair 06:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:INN (This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)) . utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but only on one condition: Clean Up the page! This can be done in a jiffy by just deleting all people with red links!Chandrannair 06:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but clean up and add references. Thanks RaveenS 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I volunteer to attempt to clean up the page if this survives the AfD process. In fact I will print down a copy of the present list to have on record all the red links, and after I finish editing and creating for notables in Singapore Literature (in a short period of less than a month, I have created several profiles of notable Singaporean poets, playwrights, novelists etc), I will make this my next project.  A simple google search will show whether the red links should be even considered for notability.  But with so many names I will certainly need a lot of assistance, and I can't promise to  be able to check everyone. (btw I just cleaned and rearranged this page.  I hope it's more user friendly now:-) Ivygohnair 08:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My opposition is based almost entirely on the unmaintainability and non-verifiablity of the list. If someone takes the responsiblity and actually weeds out the random entries, it may yet turn out to be of some worth. Tintin (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP and clean up.Jean-Louis77 12:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC) — Jean-Louis77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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