Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kandpal

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. Still unsourced.  Sandstein  06:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kandpal

Kandpal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Apart from one citation that Scholar turns up there's no evidence of the claim made in this article and no evidence that it's a notable name. WP is not a geneaology project. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per nomination and WP:NOTDIRECTORY I see no evidence that this name in and of itself is notable. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:37, 4 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) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Lack of references showing up in the regular news and print venues to suggest a distinct lack of notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's not entirely surprising that the name isn't being found in English search engines, since it's an Indian name. Nonetheless, a cursory search of wikipedia finds a ton of common and less common English surnames. Brahmins have significant status in Indian society and therefore it seems likely that a cursory overview of Hindi sources would find numerous references. This should at least be reviewed by someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy before it's arbitrarily deleted. Debate (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been informed of this ongoing discussion. Debate (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• comment That there are other similar articles is generally not considered a valid argument. AfD exists to make sure things aren't arbitrarily deleted, but deleted after five or more days of debate on the subject. I personally don't see how most Western surnames are topics for encyclopedic articles either, as most names fail the notability test, but I am all for taking things on an article-by-article basis. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• comment The comment was not an other stuff exists argument. It was in response to assertions such as "WP is not a geneaology project" per nom. Wikipedia can and does list surnames, and the fact that this one isn't appearing in English search engines is not a sufficient reason of itself for deletion, at least not without a review by someone who actually knows something about the topic. Debate (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I realize there are other surname articles. As I have already stated, I don't think most of them need a WP article either, but they are not all at AfD right now, this one is. I don't see how this name, or my name, or most other names, be they European, Indian, African, or whatever, are inherently notable. The thing that makes WP so cool is that we don't have to be experts on a topic, we just have to find reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Most of which I broadly agree with. To try to make my case a little clearer, however, what I find problematic is an assessment of notability based predominantly on Google hits for a topic that is otherwise uncontroversial and that we can already infer is not likely to be covered extensively by English language sources, especially where an argument for notability can clearly be made based on the article text (a common surname with strong links to historically significant figures, used by members of an influential caste in a large area of the world's second most populous country). Debate (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have any reliable sources to back up these assertions that this particular surname is notable? If they're as notable as you say, it shouldn't be difficult at all. While a few other-language sources are okay, this is the English Wikipedia, so most of what we do has to be verifiable to an English audience. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not strictly true, per WP:VUE. Nonetheless, I don't propose to go searching for sources for this one since I personally don't speak Hindi. Otherwise, I've already said all I need to say on this topic. Debate (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)You may want to re-read VUE. The idea is that we're catering to an english-speaking audience, so while it's obviously true that not everything has to be sourced to english documents, we can't have articles based entirely on untranslated newspaper articles and the like. That makes verifiability a difficult thing to achieve. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nom comment, please not that I didn't nominate this because it was an Indian surname without sources available. I've nominated others for the same reason, the most recent being Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shuckerow . There are some notable surnames, often written about in scholarly research such as this (just a quick search). This name does not appear notable for speakers/readers of an English language encyclopedia. That said, this has been an interesting discussion _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, I believe we should remove geneaology type articles unless there is an very clear indication that the name has a notability that deserves the individual attention. That needs to be verifiable beyond the present case. --Stormbay (talk) 15:17, 13 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.