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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bharsaiyan[edit]

[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)

I went through Google search and the article itself. It also fails WP:GNG to be kept as a standalone article. The only source, which is cited there is also a WP:RAJ era source, which is not considered WP:RS for caste related articles.-Admantine123 (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Admantine123 (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can persuade me otherwise. I have tidied up the single reference. I think it valuable to have coverage of 19th century Indian tribes castes and descriptions of them at that time but this needs to be put in a reasonably current context and not solely from an imperial point of view. I think this article does not succeed. It also seems the coverage is insufficient in notability terms. Thincat (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefalls significantly short of meeting the standards set by GNG.AmusingWeasel (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 24 June 2023 (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.