Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mech people


 * 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. And apparently retracted.  Sandstein  19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Mech people

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mech is name imposed on Boro people. Boro is proper designation. No mech call themself Mech. There is no difference between Boro and Mech. Only for linguistic purpose, sometimes scholars differentiate Mech and Kachari (Boro) language. Both mech and kachari are names given by others. They have their proper name. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep: There exists a Mech denomination of people who may or may not self-identify with the Boro people. We need some more information before we can merge this with the Boro people article or delete it. (http://wbnorthbengaldev.gov.in/HtmlPage/mech.aspx). Chaipau (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum:In the 2011 census for Assam, given in Dimasa_people, the Boro (as Boro, Borokachari) and Mech (as Mech) are listed separately. This is the evidence that the Mech did not self-identify as Boro. Chaipau (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Chaipau has presented government ST-list and presented his theory that "This is the evidence that the Mech did not self-identify as Boro". It's clearly self-making. Government can issue any number of certificates. That ST-List don't give any scholarly explanation. In fact, In same ST-list, there are different certificate for Hojai & Dimasa but they call themselves Dimasa and they belong to same community. Using government ST-cetificate , I can't create a page for myself. Chaipau's claim is illogical and Chaipau's behaviour toward Boro people is very much suspicious.

That website is very poor. They don't even know who are mech people. That website copy-pasted from wikipedia. Even the picture shown in that page belong to Rabha community which they took from wikipedia. There is nothing called mech people. Same website state that Today, a section of Mech people in West Bengal prefer to refer themselves as Bodo instead of Mech. Actually, No mech call themself mech. When mech themselves don't like that name imposed on them. For more information Standard journal - http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ebhr/pdf/EBHR_32_02.pdf. There are many more examples where same people are known by different names and government issue many certicates with different names but they all belong to same community, for example Dimasa people. When a community themselves don't want to be called by name given to them, I don't understand why editor Chaipau want to keep the  name given to Boro people. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Today, Most Place inhabited by Mech or Boro are called Boroland because mech was never proper name. Just for the sake of politics, Somebody can use name give to Boro people and create a community. Assam don't lack such example - For example, Historically there was nothing called Kachari muslim but Government of Assam started to designate new group of people called Kachari muslim. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/assam-govt-for-economic-survey-of-kachari-muslims/article30926943.ece. Chaipau claim looks like politically motivated to misuse barbarian name given to Boro people Logical Man 2000 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I prefer to go by what reliable sources say rather than by what a Wikipedia editor claims. It may be a failure to understand the connotations of the word in English, but the repeated use of the word "barbarian" is hardly going to endear anyone to this cause. There is clearly a substantial body of opinion in reliable sources, including the government of Assam, that this is a separate (but related) group. If there is sufficient weight in reliable sources saying that they are the same as the Boro people then the controversy should be covered in the article, but it certainly shouldn't be deleted.One other thing that I must mention is that we shouldn't regard Raj-era sources such as the one used for the map on this page and the one as reliable - see User:Sitush/CasteSources for the reasons why. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That government page is very old. They simply copied content from wikipeida in past. That's why image given in that page is also wrong which belong to Rabha tribe. You can check this version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mech_people&diff=877089866&oldid=877089188 . Mech name originated from mleccha. This is the reason it was never proper designation. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir, Let's assume Mech is ambiguous name and It was imposed on wide range people where some people called themselves Boro and some people did't call themselves Boro. Historically, Mechs of Undivided Goalpara (Shown in the image of Grierson's book) called themselves Boro. This the reason, Today that region is known as Boroland. If somebody from different region also call themselves Mech or Mleccha then we should divide our Mech or Mleccha based on region. Mleccha is ambiguous name. This is my opinion to handle the situation. This matter is sensitive. Government pages are copying from Wikipedia. A community can have many St-certificate, for example : Dimasa people have more than two certificates - Hojai, Dimasa , Barman , Kachari etc. This ST certificate don't give any scholarly explanation. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus to Keep it for now. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2020 (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.