Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ezhavas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 via a combination of WP:V and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Ezhavas. No merging because it's all unsourced. Daniel 03:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ezhavas

List of Ezhavas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This was deleted, apparently, by accident, as the result of a flubbed attempt to move it (log). I've restored it, but it should have a full discussion. A simple redirect to Ezhava is a possibility. Chick Bowen 23:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've also merged in the history of List of notable Ezhavas, which was deleted as an expired WP:PROD (thus undeleted on request because of this challenge, as consistent with PROD policy). See logs. Chick Bowen 23:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And finally I have found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Ezhavas, except that List of Famous Ezhavas has its own lengthy deleted history separate from the two above (admins see here). I'd like to keep this discussion going, however, just to have a final decision on all of this stuff. If it ends in delete, all of these titles should be protected against creation. If it ends in redirect, all redirects should be protected as well. Chick Bowen 00:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ezhava Tharavads for a sort of precedent. Of course, admins can see why that version was a really bad idea (it was trying to list every family in the caste I think). Recommend salting page as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete don't merge or redirect. Violation of WP:BLP, WP:V, and is far better covered by our category system. Content should therefore not be merged, and I don't see the need for a redirect. violet/riga (t) 15:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for restoring it. BTW, I am hard pressed to find a reason why this should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unni1 (talk • contribs)

Again why would a topic be deleted and locked up? If a particular article does not meet a standard, that is understandable. However does that mean the topic itself is to be deleted? Is vandalism alone a sufficient reason for deletion? If so, that would be rewarding vandals. Please do not delete this article. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unni1 (talk • contribs)


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.