Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholiyar


 * 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.  No "keep" opinion after half a month, very poor sourcing.  Sandstein  22:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sholiyar

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced casteist propaganda. Violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Most of the content has been included by an user blocked for racist propaganda, disruptive edits and sockpuppetry.- Ravichandar My coffee shop  16:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is "Sholiyar" group same as Sholiyarkal? utcursch | talk 03:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the article Sholiyarkal displays a greater degree of ambiguity. Actually, the term Sholiyar or Sozhiyar or Chozhiyar roughly means "people of the Chola or Chozha country". There are Sholiyar Iyers or Sholiya Anthaanar who are Brahmins from the Chola country; Sozhiya Vellalars are Vellalars or farmers from the Chola country. They are two very different communities. The article you provided is another one eligible for deletion. Sholiyar and Sozhiya Vellalars are two different communities. But the article whose link is provided appears to be a hoax clubbing these different communities into a single entity. Thanks for bringing this to light :-) - Ravichandar My coffee shop 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A clue as to who created the page on Sholiyarkal and why, will be found at Talk:Sholiyar. I am strongly led to suspect that it is the same user who was responsible for the vandalism at Iyer and Vadama, given the similarity of the I.P. address of the message at Talk:Sholiyar with the switching I.P. that was used to vandalise those two pages. I did notice the user responsible for the edits to Sholiyar engage in an exchange with another user who tried to introduce information on the Choliya Vellalars into Sholiyar. The dispute was resolved after a couple of rounds, with the curious message at Sholiyar Talk, I have already referenced. I had no idea where the material was accomodated, but things now are clear as day. I must say, there are few who can compete with him at his game, saving perhaps Gaiseric. The two pages he has created need to be sorely re-worked at the very least; the one with content of dubious value and original research i.e. Sholiyar and another, which is entirely dubious i.e. Sholiyarkal. In addition to the numerous instances of POV and OR, a few objections to the content in Sholiyar:

1. Chembai is an Iyer, not a Sholiyar, though the extent of overlap between these two groups is in itself supposed to be extensive.

2. The 'Eighteen Villagers' are generally considered to be Iyers; the extent of the 'Eighteen Villagers' being a part of the Sholiyars is doubtful given this, and the clause in point 1.

3. The Nambudiris of Kerala have a far longer history than the 14th c. Pandya country origin, the article seems to suggest. Adi Shankara of the 7th c. A.D. is held to have been a Nambudiri by some, for instance.

4. The Brahmin priest named 'Damodaranar' in the article was actually called 'Vadama Vannakan Damodaranar'; if any meaning is to be derived from the first name Vadama, he appears to have been a member of a sub-group of the Iyers. Refer Transactions of the Archaeological Society of South India, 1955

5. The article appears to contradict itself when it says that the name Sholiyar dates no earlier than the 19th c. and then proceeds to refer to the ancient Tamil proverb about the Sholiyars.

6. According to the legend of Trichendur, the only Brahmins who were called there by the Lord Muruga or who accompanied him are those who are commonly known as Mukkanis, a sub-group of the Iyers.

7. Of all the Nayanmars who belonged to the Sholiyars according to the article, only Sundarar is held to have been a Brahmin by most accounts.

This is but a small number of the numerous contradictions that abound within the article, and is a sufficient indictment for its deletion and re-creation or at least for its substantial re-working. I therefore recommend that the article be Deleted, for now. Voltigeur (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:22, 15 May 2008 (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.