Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namadhari Nagartha


 * 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   no consensus. Has been rewritten; can be renominated if still deemed problematic.  Sandstein  08:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Namadhari Nagartha

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Orphaned uncategorized dead-end page with no verifiable references. The PDF at the National Commission for Backward Classes link is irrelevant; as the article itself says, the group is not counted as a Backward class. It's unclear if this is a duplicate, subset, or superset of Namdhari (or entirely unrelated). Articles which list similar groups don't mention this one (e.g., Vaishya, List of Indian castes, List of Scheduled Tribes in India, Forward caste, and so on).

Additionally, much of this article appears to be a copy-paste from page 12 of this PDF. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Don't delete this Article since Namadhari Nagartha is one of the most prestagious community spread across Karnataka, Andra and Tamil nadu. This article is created to get the awareness of this caste/community in the public. All article content is relevent and yes its copied from National Commission for Backward Classes pdf since to show the proof that this community atleast exist and nominated for include in backward classes commity this advise / bill has been rejected by governtment since they believe that this caste namadhari Nagartha is upper caste as Nagartha also follows same ceremonicals as Brahmins or Lingayaths. Thre are many external Forums available about this caste Namadhari Nagartha in Facebook, In Orkut etc as a proof that this caste exists.  - Regards, Suresh NJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnj (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)  — Sureshnj (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * — Note to closing admin: Sureshnj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 11:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)



Keep as an article on Nagartha caste with information about Namadhari and Siwachar Nagarthas. A southern Indian caste is unlikely to be related to the Sikhs. There is plenty of information about the Nagarta, and an article on en.wikipedia is appropriate. Also, the lack of an entry about a South Indian topic in an en.wikipedia article is surely not a criteria for deletion. Pseudofusulina (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This caste is notable. Apparently my English and topic knowledge is not good enough to edit the article, though. Just trying to write this article and link to others on en.Wikipedia about South Asian castes shows many articles on the South Asian caste systems are useless, badly written, and wrong. But I don't like being insulted. Yes, I know my knowledge of the topic is not good; but compared to what exists on en.wikipedia, it's spectacular. I saw many out right factual errors while trying to link the first paragraph of this article; I could do nothing but correct facts in caste articles on en.wikipedia and it would be more than a full time job and still go nowhere. There is just too much anti-South Asian bias on en.Wikipedia.
 * And my edit of this article was going well. If someone else can do it better and faster, they should have just done it instead of criticizing my work.Pseudofusulina (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh… No one has said anything denigrating your English or topic knowledge. Or at least I haven't—which I've tried to explain on both the and —but I'll apologize again for the misunderstanding and for any offense you felt. And as I said on those pages, I do think you're doing a great job, and I hope you keep up the good work! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:28, 22 January 2012 (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.