Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakdwipi 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 - as pointed out, there is nothing here that would aid the writing of a verified article on this subject; and as there is no dispute that the article as it is fails WP:V and other core policies, it has to be deleted. A total rewrite wouldn't be necessary - this deletion doesn't prejudice against someone creating a verified stub (stubs do have to be verified - it wouldn't make a very good starting point if it wasn't). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakdwipi Brahmins

A very poorly written and poorly sourced stream-of-consciousness history of what would seem to be an Indian caste. This topic may well deserve its own article, but this is not it: its only source is a sort of community forum website, from which large parts of the text seem to have been lifted verbatim (see e.g. this link). Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V and/or as a copyvio. Sandstein 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but tag for complete rewrite. This version is in the form of an unsalvageable history essay, though, as mentioned, we should have a proper article on it. (|-- UlTiMuS 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it needs a rewrite - but here at AfD, we can essentially only keep, delete, merge or redirect it. Feel free to do the rewrite once it's been deleted. Sandstein 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified my stance - I assumed one would infer that a keep was in order. (|-- UlTiMuS 20:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. It's unsalvageable anyway, so we might as well delete it unless someone gets around to the rewrite. But more importantly, we must delete the copyvio text it presently contains, and we should also delete it on grounds of unverifiability alone - or do you have any reliable source attesting to the mere existence of this caste? Sandstein 20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Article needs cleanup" is not a .--Nilfanion (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to be a neologism Google search for shakdwipi turns up mirrors, forums and the like.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - They are a part of the Ethnic Fabric of India.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is one worthless unsourced WP:OR article. Or do you have any sources that we could even base a stub on? Sandstein 06:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/rewrite from scratch at the moment, article is poorly written, as well as violates POV. References from google are just from forums and other websites. At the moment, I can't even find a book which references it. [1]. Pardon me for saying this, I have never heard of them till now. Maybe it is a hoax. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 01:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no sourcing. The "related link" has the earmarks of a nearly dead site: a forum with 17 members, no articles, no active topics, a top download with 6 hits, etc... A google search for "shakdwipi" excluding the words "wikipedia" and "forum" returns only 28 unique hits out of only 84 total hits. None of those are reliable sources. Google Scholar search for "shakdwipi" returns no hits. Google Book search has only one hit, the snippet view makes me believe that there are such people as Shakdwipi Brahmins. But the combination of results lead me to believe that it will be close to impossible to write an article compliant with WP:NOR. GRBerry 03:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• I would like this article to be kept, maybe it requires some editing, this is no neologisms and anyone who is aware of the communities in india are aware of this very old community, just that other websites don't list anything about it doesn't mean you too should remove it from the website, why is wiki number# 1 encyclopedia online. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doitfox (talk • contribs). -- This comment was originally posted to this AFD's talk page. Sandstein 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) — Doitfox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - Informative but rewrite the article to avoid clumsiness. Nileena joseph 15:34, 27 October 2006 (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.