Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhumihar (3rd nomination)

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 Bhumihar, delete Bhumihar Brahmin, and redirect the deleted name to the existing name. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumihar

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

Seems like this is a duplication of the ~~better~~ similar article Bhumihar Brahmin. I suggest a delete/redirect, as there is little here to merge. Safiel (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumihar Brahmin is not a "better" article. It is a POV version of Bhumihar, based on this version of Bhumihar, which has been rejected by multiple editors. It was originally a redirect to Bhumihar, since "Bhumihar Brahmin" is a POV title - the "Brahmin" status of the Bhumihars is disputed. A single-purpose account Snr327 (most probably a sock of Mikku kumar) copy-pasted the rejected version from Bhumihar's history a couple of days back. utcursch | talk 02:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, in that case, than maybe "vice versa" on the articles. In either case, one of the articles needs to go, that is for sure and with that, I will make this an AfD on both articles. Safiel (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nomination Given the comment by Utcursch above, I will nominate Bhumihar Brahmin for deletion and let people decide which one stays and which one goes. Safiel (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, on reconsideration, striking the better from my nomination comment. Safiel (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Utcursch is correct. What needs to happen is that the Bhumihar Brahmin article becomes a fully-protected redirect to Bhumihar. The use of "Bhumihar" without the "Brahmin" is more common and more in line with how we treat caste article titles on Wikipedia generally. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we should probably also protect the non-existent Bhumihar Brahmins - they'll only move the POV stuff there if the BB redirect is fully-protected. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and delete Bhumihar Brahmin Bhumihar Brahmin is a POV title, redirect it to Bhumihar. On some research on Google books, Brahmin status of Bhumihars is disputed. Many books refer to them as shudras who have achieved upper caste status. [1], [2], [3]Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bhumihar and keep Bhumihar Brahmin: I don't agree that the title "Bhumihar Brahmin" is POV as most of the sources refer them as a Brahmin community. But still, if some members have objection with the title, then Bhumihar should be deleted first and then Bhumihar Brahmin can be moved to "Bhumihar" (by changing the title). By this we can retain the detailed content of the article Bhumihar Brahmin. Bhumihar Brahmin is quite informative and seem well-sourced. Instead of rejecting this entire article, we can remove the unsourced and poorly sourced content. -Owsert (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Owsert: the POV fork is not well-sourced at all. It was forked primarily because the main source was rejected umpteen times here, ie: Sahajanand Saraswati. It is well-known that using sources from pseudo-historians who are members of the very caste they write about is a recipe for disaster, and indeed it shows in his writings. Aside from stuff sourced to him, there really isn't all that much there that complies with policy. For example, there is a fair amount of synthesis going on and there is a heck of a lot of referencing to discredited Raj "ethnographers". They, too, have been rejected at the Bhumihar article and there is wide consensus for them to be rejected just about everywhere. This POV-fork is useless. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the argument "_By this we can retain the detailed content of the article Bhumihar Brahmin_" is flawed. The content is already retained in the history of the article Bhumihar, because "Bhumihar Brahmin" is entirely copied from a previous, rejected version of the article Bhumihar. utcursch | talk 13:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confess _ 22:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Note since I can't remember how to relist. The AfD tag was removed three days ago. I've since restored, but FYI for closing. StarM 21:45, 30 March 2014 (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.