Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parekh

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 Disambiguate (and I would warn against any WP:POINT nominations of other surnames as this doesn't set a precedent). Yomanganitalk 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parekh

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Non-notable surname. Wikipedia is not a geneology guide. Contested prod. MER-C 03:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ditto. Sr13 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Very common last name among Gujarati people . Bakaman Bakatalk 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Article may also have issues with OR. --Peta 03:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - OR isnt a reason to delete, its a reason to make the article better.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment- “Parekh” is a brilliant article. Under no circumstances should it be removed. Goes to great depths. Parekh is a notable. There are also many other surnames listed at Wiki-Should we remove all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anuradha shastri (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 October, 2006 (UTC).
      • This is the user's only edit so far --SigPig 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Dont delete,I agree. Excellent article-and many more indian surnames like 'gupta' at wiki-cant delete all, they are all notable in own respects.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spirituallyincline (talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 October, 2006 (UTC). --SigPig 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - if you delete this, then there are many more surnames, will have to delete all. i saw wiki on 'patel', very much like parekh at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patel. this was excellent. dont delete please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spirituallyincline (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 October, 2006 (UTC).
      • This and the previous are this user's only edit so far --SigPig 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Yes, wiki on 'Patel' also exists. Patel and Parekh both are gujarati. Anyways this article is splendid, and gives lot of info. Has all our hero parekhs, Bhikhu/Asha/Nikhil. Please keep it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Positivebrains (talk • contribs) 00:45, 10 October, 2006 (UTC).
      • This is the user's only edit so far, and includes changing the status of another (?) user's entry from "Keep" to "Comment". --SigPig 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It must be kept at least because it will be also a disambiguation page in the future - there are three notable persons of this name listed there.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I saw many surnames listed here like 'shah', 'patel', 'gupta', 'jain' all wiki articles. all great treatises, and this one on parekh is a beautiful encylco article. please keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anuradha shastri (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 October, 2006 (UTC).
    • This is the user's only edit so far. --SigPig 07:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--the sheer depth and brilliance prompts to keep this article. many in-depth facts brought to light here. keep article for sharing 'parekh' glory. — Possible single purpose account: Butterflyeyes9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep at least as a disambiguation page for the notable Parekhs listed. Does need some editing and wikification Fitzaubrey 08:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article seems to be original research, doesnt need verification. Saw the names and research here at many world web search. all well authenticated. Jubilantbest 08:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jubilantbest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep - the facts here are pretty established. dont feel that this article is raw. it seems pretty deep and insightful. i agree in keeping it because of its great encyclopedic worth.Maverick991 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Maverick991 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Strong delete. Ignoring the numerous sockpuppets infesting this debate, I would point people towards previous debates on the Awasthi [1] and Patel [2] surnames. I am completely unconvinced by the arguments given in those previous debates: you could make exactly the same points about most Western surnames, in that they originally denoted trade, religion, place of birth and so forth. Just because the clan name we are discussing is not Western, and involves areas of discussion such as caste, there is no reason to throw aside the principle that Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. To claim that the name Parekh inevitably means someone is of particular clan or status is less and less meaningful as emigration and reimmigration continue to throw categories into doubt. This should be on one of the numerous Wiki genealogy projects, but it is not an encyclopedic article. Vizjim 09:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to disambig as per arguments below. Vizjim 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -I feel its one of the most efficacious Wikipedia articles with authentic sources and corroborations to the same, being found out easily when one coducts a few simple internet searches. The point of deliberation shouldnt be as to whether it qualifies for here or not, but about the authenticity of this great article on Parekhs. If Wikipedia were to delete it from here, then same should be the case for all surnames listed Wikipedia.org . There are "Parekhs", "Gupta", "Jain", "Shah", "Patel" some Indian surnames and countless other English surnames too which are currently enjoying an encyclopedic status at Wikipedia, where the roots of these surnames have been traced, and notable people with them have been included at their respective pages. So what's wrong with "Parekh" . If, in particular, Gujarati Surnames, "Shah", "Patel", and the likes can enjoy wiki status and encyclopedic articles on them which have existed since long without deletion, then why not "Parekh". Its just another surname like the hundreds listed here at Wiki, with accurate informations and notable people having the same. Its a remarkable research filled article on Parekh, I mean that's the way I see it and therefore see no point or end to this bit of debate. Neither is the article Licentious/profane/abusive/sexually perverse or anything that Wikipedia abhors, bans. It is perfectly within the standards of Wikipedia. Perhaps, it might need a little brushing over again, but that doesnt qualify it to be deleted completely. That'd be sad. And if that were to be, then I'd propose deletion of all other wiki articles on each other surname listed here. There are by the hundreds, each tracing roots of that particular surname and listing notable people with it, as in case of "Parekh". This is not a small issue. Calling for deletion of this article, calls for immediate deletion of each wiki article which defines a surname and traces its roots. I could say the same for "Patel" or "Gupta" or "Shah" here at Wiki. They too are mere surnames , and again not fit as encyclopedic articles, if the debate were to expound further. A little refurbishing is all that needs to be done . And definitely this article should remain, in lieu of other hundreds of such articles on topics of 'surnames', if this were to go, rightly should the others follow suit too. Lastly, I believe its Wikipedia's policy to ban or warn such members here who abuse or deem others inferior in public, such as user "Vizjim" has done in his last post, calling others here as "sock puppets". This behavior is severely banned in open places/forums of Wikipedia .I would also like to call upon the attention of the administrators to immediately seek apologies from Vizjim of having open castigated other fellow Wikipedian's who've commented on this article.

Coolkeg908 11:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Coolkeg908 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Erm, I denigrated nobody by name. If the cap fits... Also, you say The point of deliberation shouldnt be as to whether it qualifies for here or not: our survey says "Wrong! That is exactly the point of deliberation here at articles for deletion!" Finally, I agree that numerous other articles are problematic and should be nominated for deletion. That has no bearing on whether this particular article should exist in Wikipedia or not. I think that that is all the arguments above covered. Vizjim 11:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, you might want to look at this page - WP:NOT. It is the official policy of Wikipedia that it is not a genealogical database (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory). Vizjim 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the point. If this article were to be deleted, then so should hundred others which have references to; or are encyclopedic articles on surnames. They are by the hundreds here, as I keep searching wiki's index. They are "Parekh", "Gupta", "Shah", "Reed", "Straley" and a whole exhaustive bunch of them. All surnames, which have encyclopedic pages dedicated to them, which are huge. And ending with famous/notable names with that particular surname as in Parekh. Parekh, I reiterate again, is a wonderful article. And in anycase, it makes no sense deleting such a well researched, well polished article--for again, if that were to be, then I'd be sorry to see hundreds of other articles,only on "surnames" go from here. Rules are rules. Rules applicable to one article should be stringently followed for the other. The Bottomline,if "Parekh" is deleted, then so should hundreds of other articles here at Wikipedia.org which list only 'surnames/end names' of people of virtually every origin.

And Vizjim, no that does take away your abusing people and fellow wikipedians here. Your calling them 'sock puppets' doesnt make you the leader of the lot. They are all important people here in this argument, leaving their valuable time and comments on this particular article as I see. Did wikipedia give you the right to call them 'sock puppets' and clearly deem them inferior doing the same. Wikipedia needs to take serious action against this particular comment of yours on other worthy wikipedians here in this discussion, as you've called them 'sock puppets'. Atleast a humble apology from your end to all users here would suffice, before Wikipedia intervenes.Coolkeg908 11:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I humbly apologise to all people here who are not sockpuppets or meatpuppets for, erm, not calling you anything. You may wish to read WP:FAITH. Vizjim 12:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In a more serious vein, I promise you that if Parekh is deleted, thus setting a precedent, I will nominate for deletion every other "surname" article that you have mentioned, plus any others you care to suggest (I won't do it before this particular discussion is finished because of WP:POINT, but once the precedent is established then we can go ahead and get rid of the rest of the genealogical entries). Vizjim 12:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Unless we are going to delete off wikipedia every list i.e people who's names are Bob, the article for Bob itself, or people who came from Timbuktu, or countries that breed marmots, (exaggerated examples) which I would be happy with, then IMHO there is no option but to keep it. Khukri (talk . contribs) 11:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Disambig as per comments below. Khukri (talk . contribs) 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep until Khukri you are right. I have also deliberated upon this in discussions above. Unless each article containing 'surname'or personal 'name'isnt deleted at Wikipedia, it would be wrong to delete "Parekh". If "Parekh" is deleted, then what about those hundreds and thousands of other 'surnames' which have encyclopedic articles written about them here at wikipedia. Should wiki delete them all. Who would point them all out to wiki in the first case. They are just too many. We could at the most point out to a 100 more of them existing and see to their deletion. But even still, thousands would remain in wiki's database, unnoticed and it would be unfair that whilst a few 'surname' articles are deleted-thousands more would remain. Unless, Wikipedia itself doesnt define a clear cut policy for this 'surname' article issue, that would imply to all 'surnames' here, there's no point deleting "Parekh". The moment "Parekh" is deleted (which'd be really sad , as its a fantastic article and a beautiful research on the word), it should in fair sense imply, that every other 'surname' here at wikipedia is deleted, without our having to point the same out to wikipedia-or without our having to research in great inexhaustible detail as to which other 'surnames' are prevailing here. Wikipedia itself should take action against every article with 'surname' itself, and remove all these thousands from its database. Which I think would be sad, because of the rich depth and content of these articles, compounded with the several hours of legitimate research that might have gone into creating these articles.
A final conclusion to this mighty discussion. That in fair sense, "parekh" should remain, and be brushed up a little, if it doesnt meet the perfectionist wiki standards. We can all unite to brush and polish it. But in no circumstances, should it be removed, as that would lead to a mass 'exodus' or virtually every other 'surname' and 'name' being deleted from here. A great loss that to the spirit of wikipedia and these great articles created. Let "Parekh" live, the bottom line. And Vizjim thanks for the apologies to all, in future I hope you restrict yourself to open abuse of words such as 'sock puppets' in open forums and other places. They only show your airiness and your deeming of other users here as inappropriate and belittling their views.Coolkeg908 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: user has already voted. MER-C 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All surname entries are against the WP:NOT guidelines. This specific entry is against the WP:NOT guidelines. A surprising number of contributions to this discussion are from people making their first contributions to Wikipedia, which makes it highly likely that some or all of these are sockpuppets. My vote remains to delete. Vizjim 13:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete And for what it's worth, I would support deleting ALL surname/name entries as well. Emeraude 13:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Vizjim, you are again resorting to open public abuse by addressing all other users as 'sock puppets'. Your behavior is really absurd. On one hand you apologize as above and now again you are on the ranting and condemning other users. So what if they're a first time. Perhaps, they are trying to enter other discussions as well here at wiki. And even if they're first timers, who gives you the right to condemn them or abuse them or belittle them for that matter. This is serious. I must report this to Wikipedia immediately. They should be taking action. Emeraude, yes you are right and as I'm also saying above, if this 'Parekh' is delete , then alongwith it every 'surname'/'name' wiki article should be deleted. And that should happen instantaneously from the database of wikipedia. It shouldnt be that "Parekh" is deleted first and then time/months pass before other 'surname' articles are deleted. If the deletion of this article has to happen, then on a fair basis, every other wiki article with 'surname'/'name' should be deleted simultaneously. If that isnt done and only this one is given the stick, I feel it would be highly unjust. And we users would never be able to reach out to every 'surname' article here at wiki and inform wikipedia about the same, b'cause there are thousands of them out here , which we'd never be able to tap. Also if they arent deleted simultaneously, all of them with 'surname' , then I dont think justice would prevail. Anyways, in the end, I would leave it to Wikipedia to give its final verdict, all that I would finally like to iterate again is that "Parekh" is a brilliant article in all respects. It should be given its credit for the countless hours of research that must have gone in building the page up.
If it calls for deletion, then so do the thousands of other 'surnames' and 'names' here at wikipedia.org , and that too simultaneous deletion of all these thousands of articles, not that this one goes first, and then the rest take ages to go, just b'cause we users would be virtually unable to point out to them.Coolkeg908 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: user has already voted. MER-C 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want to report me for abusing you by calling you an obvious sockpuppet (or indeed for other imagined crimes such as saying that you are deliberately giving long replies so as to put other editors off from voting) then there are various place you can go, e.g. the Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Feel free. Vizjim 14:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Disambig: remove all (genealogic) info from the page, and turn it into a disambig page for the few notable people named Parekh. I would normally vote delete, but having a disambig is the usual way to go in cases where there are famous name-bearers. Fram 15:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Disambig and remove genealogy per above and per WP:NOT a genealogy database. Zunaid 15:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Disambig per above. Good idea. Eusebeus 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Disambig- Agree with you Disambig. Because of 'noteworthy' people and name-bearers involved, let the page remain, dont delete it. But turn it into a 'disambig' page. The page shouldnt be deleted at any cost, b'cause that gives birth to many more controversies, invoking the immediate deletion of thousands of other pages of 'surnames'/'names' for a fair basis. So I feel, this option works out best and avoids the deletion of several thousands of other related pages. 220.224.21.251 17:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Disambig I think Fram has the best plan. The disambig page might also help prevent future inclusion of genealogic information. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-Since this page was proposed for deletion on Oct 9, I feel that by Oct 14, ie. 5 days later, a final decision would be taken regards its deletion, as there's a time frame of 5 days involved, in which wiki listens to debates. As far as this one goes, well its pretty obvious then that the page would stay and wouldnt be deleted. Good for the Parekh's notable ones, involved here and the very brilliant depth of this article. We'll soon come to know within 2 days or so if I'm not mistaken, about the final status of this page. I'm sure now after all these debates as above that it'd stay. Sadly, if deleted, it'd invoke thousands of other pages to be deleted as well containing 'names' and 'surnames' which are wiki encyclo articles currently. Coolkeg908 18:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply: not assuming to know the way the closing admin will see this, but the current consensus among the regular editors seems to be to get rid of the current article and to replace it by one that says: "Parekh may refer to: -Link to name1 -Link to name2 - Link to name3." Please don't expect that because most people don't support deletion, this will mean that the article will just stay as it is. It will look something like Farquhar or Hannon, probably. Fram 19:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Well if that is so, that if this page were to be replaced by something as you suggest, with just links to the notable people, with the other stuff being removed, that be it. But then, Wiki should do that on a fair basis for thousands of other pages here with 'names'/'surnames'. It shouldnt be one-sided and only for this page. This has been discussed above. That should be fair enough then. If this were to be converted into the way you are implying, then so should countless others be, similar to this. So I feel, that Wiki would let the article remain, rather than changing thousands of other articles . Coolkeg908 05:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to be quite clear, the logic employed here would lead to the deletion or radical pruning of the following articles: Smith (surname), Clan MacKay, Li (surname), among many others. I'm quite happy with that and will clean up those articles or delete them if the precedent is set here. Vizjim 08:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem with the removal of most of the material on Smith (surname). The Clan is more of a political / sociological entry, similar to a tribe (no offense intended towards either tribes or cottish people), so I think that an AfD there may justifiably give a different result. I have nominated for deletion a lot of Indian clans (ghotra's) as well, but reached no consensus. If a name is clearly more than just who was your father and what was the occupation of some greatgreatgrandfather, but indicates a "tribe" (for want of a better word), with political, geographical, ... implications, then more people will be willing to keep the article. This is of course a fuzzy boundary, and it won't be clear on every article in which category it falls (see Habsburg for an extreme example on the "keep" side). I don't feel that this article (Parekh) has enough reason to keep it, and furthermore has a complete lack of sources (thus failing WP:V). Fram 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we've come back to squre 1. Its not just about the deletion of surname 'Smith' or another particular surname. The question here is about the deletion of all 'surnames' and 'names' irrespective. That is, if "Parekh" is deleted, so should thousands of them others , particularly 'surnames' should be deleted from Wiki on a fair basis. So, lets not argue on a particular deletion of a 'surname'/'name' alongwith deletion of "Parekh". Lets conclude in a generalized statement, that if "Parekh" is deleted, then on a very fair basis, Wiki should immediately delete all other 'surnames' wiki articles alongwith the same. That's why I've been reiterating that let "Parekh" remain. If there's problems, lets work at updating it or refurbishing it according to Wiki standards. But the bottomline, let "Parekh" remain, in order to avoid the immediate deletion of not just one particular other name/surname, but in order to avoid deletion of thousands of other articles with 'surnames'. Because each Wiki article with surname is like "Parekh" , in conjunction with "Parekh". So you have to be fair in deleting all of them, if the question is about deletion of "Parekh". A surname is a surname. There's nothing special about any surname. They are just encyclopedic articles on each one of them, like the article on "Parekh". Also, the whole absurdity of the situation here is, that whereas someone suggested "Parekh" for deletion in the first case, that someone didnt care about this aspect of several thousands of other surnames being here at WIKI and their simultaneous deletion with "Parekh". If that someone had thought of the same, then he/she wouldnt have suggested or nominated this particular article for deletion. Or whilst nominating this particular article for deletion, would have definitely on an ethical and fair terms, also suggested the deletion of thousands of other 'surname' articles, doing a thorough research on them, and pointing out to them individually by their names. I feel I have nothing more to talk about this. What's fair is fair. Lets adhere to that. That if this goes, so should thousands of other 'surnames'.

Coolkeg908 08:32, 14 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.