Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhiman

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. Star Mississippi 20:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The content within this article lacks verifiability, neutrality, and contains original research. The article is authored by a contributor(User:Karandhimanbahre) with a potential conflict of interest(see his other contributions/talk page) with not enough citations/reliable sources.

I believe the article does not meet Wikipedia standards. It lacks inline citations, and the information about the notable individuals(removed now) [1] and companies appear to be without proper verifiable sources.

Moreover, the article is in a state where cleanup or rewriting would require an extensive effort due to its lack of verifiability and biased presentation. Starting this AfD to either delete, fix or draftify this article. Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Literature, Ethnic groups, History, and India. Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is in sad shape, but deletion is not for cleanup. I do not find any blatant WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues; existing sources pass WP:GNG easily; and additional sources exist based on basic WP:BEFORE searches. I am confused by the WP:NPOV and WP:V complaints in the nom. Other than the fact that the cites are all at the bottom of the article instead of inline, the sources seem to support the article text. I am also disturbed by the accusation of WP:COI in the nom. I think that should be stricken unless the nominator can support how one or more of the authors contributing to the article have a financial stake in the subject of a caste (without outing or doxing that editor). If the COI argument is specific to one or more entries in the Current Accomplishments section, that (again) is a matter of cleanup, not an argument for deletion. Overall, I see no valid policy reasons to delete the article, and I feel that deletion will not improve the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to blow it up and start over. With regards to WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:V, the author/major contributor User:Karandhimanbahre, has 44 edits in total. [2]. Subject has 79.9% content from the user:Karandhimanbahre.

The name Karandhimanbahre and their userpage clearly indicates they are from the Dhiman subset. Also has a previous COI warning from submitting this article initially[3] and tried to create Jatinder Dhiman recently. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. My COI argument is not because of the entries in the Current Accomplishments section but from WP:EXTERNALREL.

It's widely known that upper-caste Indians often proudly display their caste identity, carrying it with them wherever they go. Ex: Karandhimanbahre's user page. Now to clarify WP:OR, Is there any source for the notable names and companies mentioned on the article actually belongs to the Dhiman subset? No.

In the Culture section, Dhimans are group of people, who took Engineering and Technology works as an occupation. and The community is moving very highly in society in both business and education. I believe there was no term called technology those days and the 2nd quote is not NPOV. Similarly in Current Accomplishments, Today, we can see people from Dhimans group leading in many sectors. From business, art, and science to politics, people from this group are showcasing strong accomplishments.

"Dhiman-Brahmin are on-par with the Brahmins in the current time, whereas until the early 1500s they were above the rest of Brahmins in the social hierarchy." looks like it has been rephrased from Panchal, This is enough for this editor to be not anywhere near this article. Looks like the whole section Dhiman is copied from Panchal. Jeraxmoira (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see similarities between Dhiman and Panchal—almost identical from section to section with only some words replaced. Jeraxmoira (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Superb analysis and explanation, Jeraxmoira. Thank you! I am still deeply uncomfortable with using COI outside PROMO issues, but I know that caste is a special case for many policies and guidelines. I'm concerned that allowing the idea to creep too far would mean excluding Brits from articles about UK culture and history, or blocking LGBTQIA2S+ from articles about gay and transgender topics. That said, editorial bias of any kind damages the encyclopaedia, so removing it is a good idea. On balance, though, is it reasonable for an entire article about a caste to be scrapped due to COI issues of a single editor? That worries me.

As I said above, I think that the subject passes GNG and is worthy of an encyclopaedic article. I do agree with the callouts above as examples of puffery or likely POV issues that need to be excised, but I just can't see the article as a whole being TNTed for it. Do you really think that there is literally nothing in the article that can be salvaged? That seems... harsh. I think a stronger approach would be to keep the article and ruthlessly, sentence by sentence, strip out everything that cannot be directly supported by RS. The citations in the article and the additional ones readily available on gScholar or gBooks should give us a strong starting point for a better article. In short, I think this is still a Keep and that the discussion should move to WP:BRD and the Talk page. I am quite willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm not seeing a good reason (yet). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying about COI and the need to salvage articles, but this cannot be compared to your examples as here it is proven that the major contributor has a COI with the article. First off, the article was created in May 2023 and is not a long standing one. From the page history, the only significant contributor is the author himself. Secondly, most parts are copied from Panchal as I have mentioned in my previous reply. And I don't think WP:BRD is of any use here as everything in this article can be removed because of no inline citations. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In this case, the article would end up empty, which is why I initiated this AFD.

FWIW, if you believe the current sources meet GNG (even though many might fall under WP:RAJ and therefore are not reliable), then the article should be draftified until someone completely rewrites it. Jeraxmoira (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify at minimum. AFD may not be cleanup but this is an article that does not have any inline citations that falls directly under the purview of ongoing general sanctions. This cannot be acceptable for mainspace. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify at the very least. Article is inherently flawed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a very strong WP:TNT case. When we're dealing with an article that has no inline sources, is completely disputed, and is on a topic that falls under disciplinary sanctions... sometimes AfD does actually have to be cleanup. -- asilvering (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or otherwise remove from mainspace. This is unlikely to be suitable as a base to write a properly sourced article. Most of the cited sources are not really reliable for the topic presented, i.e. Hindu scritptures, colonial era ethnography, mentions of actors with a particular last name, or don't support the content of the article (e.g. the government reports about the Tarkhan (Punjab) caste that only mentions Dhiman as a synonym of that group. In short it needs new content based on new sources to be a viable article and thus is a reasonable candidate for WP:TNT. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.