Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karan (caste)

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 keep. bd2412 T 03:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karan (caste)

Karan (caste) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is based on absolutely no evidence except some anecdotal stories that are utterly false and unsubstantiated.

But these kind of articles intend to harm the reputation or show in poor light the esteem of a particular community of peoples and society. Such practices should be banned and considered a libel. These practices are harmful for social cohesiveness and show insensitivity to people belonging to a community or caste.

Please delete these articles to teach a lesson to those who write them to spread controversy and casteism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srijoydas (talk • contribs)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The second half of the nom's rationale is not a valid rationale for deletion. However, the sourcing of this article seems very weak. I couldn't even find the article name in any of the sources by searching them (not sure if this means that it isn't contained in them, just that the search didn't pull it up). Can someone with a greater knowledge of the caste system find some evidence of the existence of this topic? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is a complete mess. The nominator has removed a redirect to insert a poor prior version of the article which they immediately put up for discussion here. I suspect the rationale is actually that the article has been a bone of contention for years and they would rather have nothing than have it redirected to what they consider to be the wrong target. They do have a point of sorts: there is an open merge discussion at Talk:Karan_Kayastha#Proposed_merge_with_Karan_(caste) but an anon unilaterally redirected it in October 2017. Basically, the anon usurped process by boldly redirecting an article whose history is very obviously contentious, and then the nominator here has usurped process by reinstating an old version of what, prima facie, would have been a candidate for WP:RFD. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Modern contentions aside (and article shenanigans), there is plenty of sourcing available. e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Wikipedia does not censor concepts that appear odious to some modern people. We have articles on Mestizo or Mischling for instance.Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not as simple as that. Some of those sources - and plenty more - are not reliable and/or ambiguous. And what is left is basically that they appear to be Karan Kayasthas. Hence the "shenanigans". This AfD should be withdrawn as out of process, the redirect should be rescinded and the merge discussion should take place. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether they are a regional equivalent to Kayasthas (possible redirect and merge there) or similar but deserving of a separate article is a separate issue. The concept of a Karana caste "has legs" - e.g. these scholar hits - [9]. There are more enough hits on this (in books and in scholar) to see that the concept is notableIcewhiz (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. As previously with caste related AfDs, you're barking up the wrong tree because you do not understand the sources nor, probably, the variant naming conventions. There's a reason someone above mentioned that this could do with some "expert" eyes. You've also just altered the article big time, which makes a nonsense of my first comment here and just adds to the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• To clarify that, the merge proposal is already there. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand sources enough to see that they are there for this caste. I restored the article to the state it was prior to the nomination - after looking through the article history see that you reverted based on the additions being made by User:Sadaryohan who is a confirmed sock.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't understand castes, therefore cannot understand the sources - "this caste", indeed! And I don't understand what you have just done at the article. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please NPA. I returned the article to this version (with the addition of the AfD) - if you disagree with this action, revert me.Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• NPA? WTF? - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, I agree that the thing should not be deleted. But my point is we should not even be having this discussion here. It's a waste of seven days. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced = fails WP:V = mandatory deletion. Sandstein 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Icewhiz. He quotes plenty of sources, and it appears a low-level edit war prevents them from being seen in the article. If it has that many sources, it is notable. Text that people find objectionable should be discussed on the talk page and not at AfD. Ifnord (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as with Icewhiz above, I see several books that mention the caste. I don't know much about the system but made some minor grammar changes to improve the article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:26, 27 January 2018 (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.