Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous brahmins


 * 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. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

List of famous brahmins

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT an indiscrimate list of information. What is considered to be "famous" is Original research. None of this is verifiable as there are no reliable sources. POVs can also develop very easily with an article as fragile as this. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Brahmin is just a Hindu social class (varna), not an ethnic group, clan or organization. Brahmin was the priestly class in Vedic times, but in modern times, "Brahmin" varna doesn't indicate anything (ethnic status, occupation etc.). This is like having List of famous middle-class people. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 09:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  12:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The caste system is fundamental in India, and is not merely the equivalent of a western class system. Greg Grahame 12:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We have articles on Caste system and Brahmin. They are of course notable and historically fundamental to Indian society but that is not the reason I propose deleting it. It is an indiscrimate collection of information full of Original research with not one reliable source. And it will be quite difficult to find source that state such and such are "famous Brahmins," rather than "famous" and "Brahmin." GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 12:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Greg, "Brahmin" is not jāti -- it is one of the four larger varnas (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra). In the original Vedic society, the varna of a person was determined by his karma/occupation. Later, the system became hereditary and jātis (instead of individuals) came to be classified under one of the varnas. Everybody who follows the Indian caste system belongs to one of these four "varnas", which makes this an indiscriminate collection of information. We already have lists of people by jāti/caste. Eg. List of Kayasthas, List of Chitpavans etc. An analogy: The list of List of Kayasthas is like List of Indians. List of famous brahmins is like List of Asians. utcursch | talk 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I assume "famous" is synonymous with "notable" in WP parlance as I assume it is in all articles and categories, so that aspect doesn't bother me - just rename without the word "famous". Indeed, I thought that the norm at WP anyway.  We have lots of lists of things that would be very numerous unless we implied a notability requirement: e.g, by race, religion, affiliation, e.g., List of Yale University people, and myriad others.  That said, do we extend our racial, ethnic, and religious classifications to caste classifications? I am a strong proponent of doing away with these categories, but isn't it evidence of WP:BIAS to permit categories of non-Westerners on the bases of categories that "matter" to our majoritarian Western minds but delete categorizations of Indian people according to the native classification scheme? Carlossuarez46 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing. This page will be unmaintainable. On a simplistic level, there are four castes in India and Brahmins are one of them. Even ff they constitute 2% of India's population (they actually represent more than that) there would be twenty million of them. No, not all of them would be notable but it would be the same size of a List of famous Australians and half the size of List of famous African Americans. There aren't as many alumni from a particular university as there are from the Brahmin caste. In fact it may be actually a closer size to List of famous Californians. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 23:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The primary argument for the deletion nom is WP:NOT, not WP:POV ("famous"). We do have list of people by jāti. Eg.: List of Kayasthas, List of Chitpavans etc. But, Brahmin is not a jāti -- it is one of the four "varnas"; the jātis are classified in one of these larger varnas. Having a List of Brahmins is not like having a list of List of Yale University people -- it's like having a List of people who were educated in a University. utcursch | talk 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a category is better, if we need to divide people this way, but as for things being of little relevance in the modern day, we ought to remove all those Fooian-American particularly where being so categorized is based on some small part of ancestry sufficiently far removed that unless someone told you that Notable Person was Welsh, Scots-Irish, Bulgarian, Finnish, Danish, whatever you'd have no clue, and all those minor "nobles" all over the place, e.g., being a baronet, earl, viscount, marquess, marquis, count and much the rest doesn't say much about the title holder - he could be rich/poor, religious/not, loyal to the crown/not, employed/not. Carlossuarez46 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 07:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - There was a consensus [|on the indian topic noticeboard] that supports lists over categories (in terms of jati. Lists by caste, are large and unwieldy and fall under the jurisdiction of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Baka man  22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The imprecise confusion brahmin class and jāti (caste) has already been mentioned.  I cannot see how this article can be maintained without difficult POV issues.  I also see no need for a category to track this information. Buddhipriya 00:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and the previous discussion User:Bakasuprman linked to. Unsourced, unencyclopedic and unmaintainable list with POV problems. Abecedare 02:14, 13 July 2007 (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.