Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Gouds

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Gouds

Famous Gouds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Just a list of people with nothing in common other than a surname. --ROGER ^TALK 11:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete if they were that famous, they'd all have articles. Lugnuts 12:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Lugnuts. What do these people have in common besides sharing a banal surname? What next, List of famous Smiths, List of famous Kowalskis, List of famous Kims? Pure listcruft. --Targeman 13:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Actually, Goud is a cast in India. Their "backward cast" status means they were at a disadvantage compared to the other casts, so they technically had a tougher road. That said, I cant vote keep for an article that doesn't cite any sources. Corpx 15:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for the clarification, I had no idea. The article should at least mention that and provide a link to Goud. --Targeman 16:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above, ref. Corpx. Bearian 16:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not Goud enough. (couldn't resist that) Clarityfiend 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Goud knows it's hard to resist :-) --Targeman 21:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Goud. I agree with Corpx (without whom we wouldn't know what the author was talking about) that there's no reason to keep something that's unsourced and doesn't explain that Goud is a caste. Mandsford 01:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I think its better to merge with the Goud article and we can put citation tag in that article. If the people cant put any authenticated ref/link to the content (people) added to the article, then we can go ahead remove the content.

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 17:50, 23 July 2007 (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.