Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mall sainthwar

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 as unverifiable and possible original research. Redirect will also be deleted. --Coredesat 06:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mall Sainthwar

Administrative note: This is a second attempt at an AfD that was plagued almost entirely by sock-puppets. Lets give it another shot, with some experienced voters having a hand, eh? Below is the original nomination. No vote. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Per previous instances where legions of brand new users have flooded a debate, I have semi-protected this debate. If any new or unregistered user wishes to make a substantive point in the debate they should please do so on the Talk page. Guy 13:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice.

Not notable. Only one google hit for name. Creator removed prod, is civil but cannot provide other sources. Possible original research. Please also note Mall sainthwar rajputs redirect first created by author as a copy.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not only is it non-notable, it's among the worst written pages I've ever seen. If the author wishes to keep it, I reccommend book citations to prove notability and an article formatting that can actually be read. --tjstrf 07:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that it is quite likely that English is not the first language of the contributor. GassyGuy 07:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. Doesn't change that the article has no cohesive structure. (indeed, it's nearly nonsense) -----tjstrf 07:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
What I was trying to say nicely is, please consider the points laid out at Wikipedia:Civility. While it may be appropriate to point out that the article would require cleanup if it survives AfD, there is no need to call it "among the worst written pages" you've seen, even if it is. GassyGuy 07:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just changed some of the formatting to make it easier to read. It does need rewriting and the sources need clarifying. But if what is there is true, it's a good piece of Inidian hstory that seems deserving of an article.--Siobhan Hansa 08:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In as much as I can make head or tail of it, it appears to be original research in support of an external agenda. I am not satisfied that the article is neutral, the sources do not allow me to verify that, and I do not have the wherewithall to fix it, so unless it is fixed it should be removed as violating core policies. Guy 13:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I desperately want to say keep on this, because I'm just sure enough about this to think it's worthy, but I'm not sure regarding the source and don't know enough about it to make a clear decision. I'd suggest whoever chooses to close this see if they can get input from someone more familiar with the history and subject (or a similar subject) to get a clearer idea on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article undergoes a major rewrite and upgrade of sources. As noted above, the writing style is difficult to understand and suggests an author with limited English language skills. The surname of the primary source author matching the subject of the article also raises concerns about the objectivity of the cited sources. While this could be valuable material it appears just a likely that this article is an attempt to promote the importance of a family or clan using private family histories. --Allen3 talk 13:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and ban the socks/meats that flooded the first attempted discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it stands as totally unverifiable. Conceivably, there might be some other spelling or transliteration that could produce sources, but that looks pretty doubtful. Fan-1967 20:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, non-compelling prose (the introduction fails to describe adequately what the article is about), and no other article links to it. -Amatulic 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy and Straong Delete. WP is not Uncyclopedia, elaboration doesn't render verifiability to hoaxes. - Aditya Kabir 02:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: http://www.hvk.org/articles/0698/0087.html  ?!?!?!?!? LGMᚂ 02:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The responses to the first AFD was by true citizens. They are different people and the term sock puppet does not apply to that. They have reacted in that way since they are new to the Wikipedia. Is there a policy in Wikipedia that gives more weightage to an user of Wikipedia who knows absolutely nothing about a topic, rather than experts from that area who are not Registered Users in Wikipedia. Does it mean that once you are a registered user you have every right to pronounce judgements about areas that you have idea or knowledge. This is a disturbing trend. The article is poorly written, but atleast there should be no doubt about the Notability and Verifiability. Can every one who has voted above tell me what all steps they took before telling this is Non Notable and Non-verifiable. AFD should involved active participation and not just "delete" even in areas where one has no knowledge  Doctor Bruno  13:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no proof that they were 'true citizens' instead of one person with a legion of sockpuppets, although per WP:AGF let's assume they are a real group of different people. Nonetheless a group cannot ensure their article is on Wiki unless it is notable and verificable; which this article fails. The only sources to support it is one website and few offline non-English books whose existence cannot be verified: sorry, this is not enough; one could use such 'sources' to prove anything. I asked for Indian community to verify the books/facts, nobody has responded, and the poor quality of the article is just a final nail to the coffin.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
What all things you want to verify. Tell me some 5 points and we will post the question to the over enthusiastic guys who are trying to defend the article. Many books have been cited. Just because the users in India don't have time to go to library and just because those books are not available online, it does not mean that the sources are false. If there is a doubt, you have to keep. Give them some time to scan and upload. What is the urgency in deletion  Doctor Bruno  14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The only sources to support it is one website and few offline non-English books whose existence cannot be verified The only sources for MOST of India related contents are non English books and 99 % of those are offline. If you are not respecting those, then I see a BIG systemic bias here. Such behaviour will ensure that there are no articles related to Indian History in Wikipedia. I find such a behaviour disruptive to Wikipedia in the long run  Doctor Bruno  14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi, I need some more time to rewrite/edit this article. Yes... I admit that it seems to be poorly written and may not be easy for a non Indian to understand. I will provide you more sources of verification. Since these are the festivel days in India (like your christmas) So I am on holiday. Moreover I strongly object to the remraks "sock-puppets" as it is very insulting and not civilised in this case. Before making any such comment, you can verify that such people really exist or not. Almost everyone has provided his contact numbers, addresses and other such details. Anyway..accept my regards and give me some time if you can. Shalendrasingh 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I too second this. Irrespective of the fact whether the article is kept or deleted, the editors have to Assume Good Faith and Maintain Civility. A lot of phone numbers, addresses were given in the first AFD. Shouldn't the guys who decide to call genuine persons has SOCKS, cared to Verify (by just calling those numbers) as to the persons were genuine or not. The numbers are from various regions in India and it is obvious that it cannot be one person. Why is that Verifiability only for the new users and those who are not accustomed with Wikipedia. Why do the senior editors don't care to even type a simple Sorry for the Blatant Insults they heap on others without verification. You can say that it is not your duty to call every number. But then it is not your duty to insult others. A casual look at the first AFD especially before I formatted it will tell that those are new users and not suspected socks There was not even a "Keep" or Strong Keep etc. It was all in the form of letters to editor of a magazine. It was obvious that these were guys who are new to Wikipedia. Still insults are heaped. Is it because you can tell anything here and get away. This should be changed. Senior editors should act with conscience. They should understand that the WP:V which they are so fond of quoting applies to their action also. ANy one can do mistakes. But in any civil word, a simple sorry is expected after insulting some one. This long message is to tell editors that others are getting hurt by your (??unintentional) acts.  Doctor Bruno  02:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. My goal when nominating this for AfD was to generate discussion, not necessarily delete it. The goal seemed to have been achieved; I'd like to note that I am not voting either keep or delete - please count my vote as nominator as abstain. It is my hope that this article can be improved and expanded. If not, I suggest it is moved into Shalendrashingh userspace, as he indicated a willingness to work on it until it passes our notability/verifiability criteria.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have told that I am in no way related to those Rajputs. My concern is that Indian (as well as other regions where internet is not so popular) articles are immediately deleted when that does not turn up in Google. In many cases the editors search with the wrong spelling. In many cases the sources are not online. I am only opposing the stand "Few hits in Google, hence not notable, delete" taken by most American and European Editors who never VERIFY things  Doctor Bruno  02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep- I would like to agree with dr.bruno's argument. He is an intelligent , unbiased editor of wikipedia. I think Mall Sainthwar is an article of historical importance. Most of the users depends wikipedia for getting informations. If it fails to give information on relevant things who cares this site. Unneccessary deletions organised by junior editors and sock puppets will surely fade the image of wikipedia.Nileena joseph 08:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    I apologize in advance, but may I ask whom are you referring to when you say "Sock puppets"? And may I ask your reasons for thinking that the article is of historical importance? utcursch | talk 09:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-(May not be provoked) Little Cleaning-up is needed to the article.I agreed!. But no need to delete. Cutting off the head is not a medicine of headache.I can't blindly comment that a community or a caste is non- notable.(Days of untouchability has gone) Union Cabinet recently approved inclusion and modification of certain castes and communities in the Central list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Castes like Mall-Saindhavar,`Kurmi-Sainthwar' and `Kurmi-Mall' as sub-castes of Kurmi and Unai Sahu have also found place in the list.There were a number of news reports that I have read about their repeated pleas for inclusion in OBC list. Anyway Mall Sainthavar is a community of historical significance.A news report that I have found from The Hindu daily is furnishing herewith-[1]Nileena joseph 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Dera Nileena, thanks for the link. What should be noted here is that Mall and Sainthwar have been mentioned as sub-castes of Kurmi. But, the article says that Malls and Sainthwars are Rajputs and gives a "historical" account of these castes as Rajputs without any reliable sources/citations. I'd happy to change my vote to keep, if some convincing sources are provided. My reason for voting delete is not that Malls and Sainthwars don't exist. The reason is the article only contains false information. The link provided by you only strengthens the view that the article is Original Research/Hoax/Attempt to rewrite history. utcursch | talk 03:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

++++ Respected Utcursch sir ji, if you are considering the OBC list to decide that Mall and sainthwars are subcaste of kurmi, then I think you are trusting on Indian politicians who are greedy about vote. Kurmis and mall-sainthwars don't have marriage relationship. This entire politics was started by one Congress Politician who said that sainthwar kshtriyas should be included in OBC list- just to gain vote. He alongwith some more politicians were successful in doing that but later on court order they were removed from OBC list. Again during 1994, few politicians started the move supported by some local sainthwars to include them in OBC list. That was the time when every caste wanted to be in OBC list to get the benefit of reservation. This time, there was no chance for inclusion in OBC list only by name - sainthwar. So a big game- where by this caste alongwith MALL will be declared as sub-caste of Kurmi and few sainthwars gave written affidavit that they have marital relationship with kurmis to avial benefit of reservation. This was enough for those politicians and by this, these two rajput clans became subcaste of kurmi on government record BUT NOT IN SOCIETY.

Being an Indian you must be knowing that how politicians are playing on the name of caste and religion. How they became nervous after supreme court judgement on creamy layer. What I want to say is that - Instead of wide gap between Mall-sainthwar and other rajputs, there are marriage relations but not a single relation with kurmis except love marriage. I would also like you to visit some villages like Pali, Bhusawul, Bharrohn, Dughra, Danaur.. and get the royal feel. Bharrohn village belongs to BHATI RAJPUT migrated from Jaislemer, Rajasthan. Sir, one can write anything to glorify his past, but what about existing Historical places which are named after Historical events....... By jay singh jaysingh_r@yahoo.co.in, Mob no 09322697836Jaysingh r 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Respected utcursch ji, Your are right if you go by govt. papers. There are two opananion about this too. But some historian has done a lots of research on this topic and most of them are non Sainthwar, they have tried to prove that Mall Sainthwars are rajputs. Actually this is a tiny community and limited mainly to eastern part of U.P. Some are still located in kashmir and Rajshthan. Many Sainthwars.. especially some Malls have a very systematic "vansh chart" (community pedigree chart) which prove their roots to old royal rajput families. If they are a subcaste to kurmi then some questions need to be answred. Why are they found in a limited place (mostly in eastern U.P.)? Why don't they have any relations with kurmis? Why "Akhil Bhartiya Kshatriya Mahasabha" recognises them as Rajputs/kshatriya? Why the UP govt once put them out of OBC category? Dear, you know that how vote politics can defy and distort history to gain some personal advantage in India especially in north India, where caste based politics is given prime importance. So don't go by the politics.. wait for complete revised article with many more citation for verification and then give your verdict. Had it been your doubts only then it was most welcome but you have tried to put your thoughts so forcebly as if evrything is very well known to you. Shalendrasingh 07:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Delete. (No systemic bias here, I'm an Indian). While I respect Doctor Bruno's efforts, this is completely cooked up "history". The few text sources are "VISHEN VANSH DARPAN" and "Aina -e - Awadh" are extremely non-notable and are probably published by "Mall Santhiwars" themselves. utcursch | talk 09:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • * * KEEP* * * This is regarding the mail by Utcursch where he strongly supported to 'delete' by saying that he is Indain and go on blaming that History is Cooked by Mall - Sainthwars Rajputs. Sir, if you are Indian then kindly visit North India, know diffirent clans of Rajputs and kindly read some books like books Vishen vansh vatika, Kshatriya kalpdrum, Kshatriya kalplata, Kshatriya Rajvansh, Gorakhpur janpad aur iski kshatriya jatiyon ka itihas etc., these books can not be found on internet but that doesn't mean that these books are wrong. Further kindly refer the 16th century battle between Noorjahan Begum and Mahawat khan in Kashmir near Jhelum river.

There are some places which are named after some historical events. Aine-e-Akbari is not written by Mall and sainthwar rajputs nor we need historical cooking to prove ourself. For some political benefits, one political partiy declared mall-sainthwars as 'sub-caste of kurmi', which I highly condemn. Regarding our existence, you can very well refer to 'Central OBC list' of India. Also I request to visit Rajasthan, place of Rajputs and look for Bhati rajputs in Jaislmer. You will find the link. By Jaysingh Note: This is user's second edit. utcursch | talk 03:03, 24 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.