Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikkaligar


 * 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. The article as it currently exists does not meet WP:V, and People of India does not appear to be a reliable source sufficient to rewrite the article. No prejudice against recreation iff appropriate sources can be found. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sikkaligar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod contested without comment. My prod rationale was "This appears to be original research: 'The Sikkaligar people that we did research on...', 'A 210-item wordlist was collected...' Wikipedia is not for publishing of original research." Some of the quoted verbage has since been removed, but not what was the apparent OR itself. I can find a few mentions of Sikkaligar in lists available in Google Books, but that is it, not enough information to write an article without OR. Lady of  Shalott  19:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  19:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a substantial entry for these people in People of India. Warden (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The "states" series of The People of India is not a good source and has been criticised previously both on various article talk pages, at WT:INB and at WP:RSN, eg: here. As well as by academics, of course. It would probably be sensible not to use it in the article, if only because it regurgitates the work of gentleman-scholar ethnographers from the British Raj period - most of whom were scientific racists - and generally does so by outright plagiarism or with an absolute minimal acknowledgement. The "national" series, published by OUP during the lifetime of the series editor, is ok. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs a lot of work, but worth keeping. They sound a little bit like the Romani people of Eastern Europe but much more primitive. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2013 (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.