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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chadhar[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Chadhar is certainly used as a last name and also refers to an item of clothing similar to a sheet ... but I can find nothing but mirrors, a single unreliable book published by Gyan and discussion forums that potentially refer to it as a tribe. Sitush (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 19:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)}.[reply]

Speedy Keep Needs expansion not deletion. History of Chander can be found here. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,more links These sources establish WP:GNG of the subject of the article. List of people with Chander or Chandler surname. Anup Mehra ^✈ 11:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misread the article. It concerns an Indian community called Chadhar, not a Anglo one called Chander or variants thereof. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I misread the title and wasted 40mins finding sources and expanding the article. Thanks for correcting me. The article is now supported by two reliable sources. There's many more and I still insist following the availability of multiple sources that the subject of the articles passes Wikipedia general notability guideline. The article needs expansion not deletion. Anup Mehra ^✈ 16:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra - I've removed those sources because they were lists based on unreliable British Raj sources with no verification that they even referred to the same community (different spellings etc). You've also agreed that you were using the Google Books snippet view when assessing them and that is simply not good enough. - Sitush (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:, Yeah I've noticed that you keep removing each and every source(s), I add to the article to verify WP:GNG criteria of the subject of the article, declaring them all as British Raj sources. Can you please be more specific(or logical) to this British Raj source term? You seems to be declaring each and every source(s) as British Raj source and hence unreliable and it is just because you say so? For eg., The last source you removed, is this, written by, Kumar Suresh Singh and published by Anthropological Survey of India in 1996. The year 1966 doesn't belong to British era, neither does the author Kumar Suresh Singh, How is this a 'British Raj source' then and hence unreliable? Please explain! An another source, Author, A.P. Thakur and publishing house, Global Vision Publishing Ho, 2005. How is this not a reliable source? Next regarding snippet view, Does Google decide whether a source is reliable or not? Like this one, page 418 deals with the tribe, Chadhar but google doesn't even have preview for a single page. So, It is a perfect reason to categorize it as unreliable source? Well, at least WP:RS doesn't say so. And as I've earlier been said, there are other multiple sources exist that easily establish the notability of the subject of the article. Needs expansion not deletion. Notability should not be a reason to delete this article. If there's some other problem related to this article, please bring them up. Anup Mehra ^✈ 15:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that you cannot see more of the People of India sources otherwise you would already know that they are mostly reprints of the Raj stuff written by such discredited amateur ethnologists as H. H. Risley. In this specific instance, it looks like it might be Denzil Ibbetson or just possibly H. A. Rose. Of course, no snippet view is acceptable anyway. As for Global Vision, I'm sure that I've already explained that publisher is a known mirror of Wikipedia content - there are probably some examples at WP:MIRROR and WP:RSN - and even if it were not a mirror, its output does not stand up to scrutiny.

It seems likely that you are relatively new to sourcing caste-related articles and that is causing you to have difficulties with regard to what constitutes a reliable source. What is more worrying is your continued belief that snippet views are ok for anything even though they lack context and in this specific instance do not even spell the name in the same way - perhaps you should read WP:V and WP:OR also in order to get a better understanding. It is also not enough for our notability criteria that a community which may or may not exist happens to appear in some random list. Until you find a source that is reliable and actually discusses this community then the article has no place here, bearing in mind also such issues such as sanskritisation and more general trends of fusion and fission among Indian communities. This stuff has been discussed to death across umpteen caste-related articles, at WT:INB, at WP:RSN, WP:DRN and even the drama board that is WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - participants in this discussion might also care to read my comment here. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:Hey! Did you read all these before suggesting it all to me? Like, WP:MIRROR, WP:RSN, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:GNG, WP:INB, WP:RSN, DRN, and WP:ANI. If not. Take a day or two day or even a month and read or re-read again. I would like to let you know that none of them say anything or something related to British raj source. And re-read my previous comment, I said this, written by, Kumar Suresh Singh not H. H. Risley, Denzil Ibbetson or H. A. Rose and published Anthropological Survey of India in 1996. How is this a 'British Raj source' and hence unreliable? Does some wiki project says publisher Anthropological Survey of India uses British raj source(s)? Or the author Kumar Suresh Singh? If yes, redirect me to that particular wiki project page. If not, then please don't be imposing your personal opinion. You try to keep your own version of article and debate on the same, by keep removing sources added by me. Should I believe all just because you say so? Hmm.. I could not. Please be more specific with the term British raj sources. Please present the particular wiki project/guidelines regarding it, not some other tons of wiki projects nothing not related with the subject. And snippet view, I've some sort of references related to the subject of the article, and Google doesn't hold the preview of them. WP:RS doesn't say that, It is the only those books having full view on Google books would be considered reliable. Believe me, I read all. And I suggest you to do, as well. Anup Mehra ^✈ 13:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all of those and more - I've been here for a while and am among the most experienced contributors to articles relating to caste. I also wrote Kumar Suresh Singh and our article on the People of India publications, as well as completely rewriting H. H. Risley etc, so I'm familiar with the writers as well as what they wrote. You are not dealing with an idiot here but short of canvassing people to comment, which is frowned upon, there is not much more I can do except appeal to your good faith and common sense. You're wrong, even if you do not realise it. When I'm dealing with someone who continues to make such basic mistakes as consistently mistaking the name "Chander" for "Chandler" (as recently as 24 hours ago and despite previously been told of the mistake) then I can only hope that the person who closes this discussion can recognise the disparity in competence between us, sorry. We are all supposed to be equal here but competence is required. I'm happy to help you learn our ways but an AfD is a difficult venue in which to do that. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: You just seem to be imposing your own personal views onto others. You say, Wiki policies say this, but when do I ask for that particular Wiki Project page, You go silent. Isn't it? WP:RS does not say anything such as, In order to verify reliability of a source that is a book, it must have a full preview on Google, but you said so. I asked for the Wiki project page dealing with, British raj sources, Look what you did you give, this→(WP:MIRROR, WP:RSN, WP:V,WP:OR, WP:GNG, WP:INB, WP:RSN, DRN, and WP:ANI). None of the texts of the above page matches British raj sources. I asked you to redirect me to page that says, Anthropology Survey of India or Kumar Suresh Singh uses British raj sources, read your own last comment, what did you answer, you said, You just know it. Isn't it like, You want to spread your own version of knowledge based on nothing? I've no intention to follow your words blindly. Show me the source(s) in support of your line of reasoning. And about Chander and Chandler, I invite you to start a new discussion page related to Chander andChandler on the related page not here. You call me mistaken just because you want to. An another example of imposing personal view. Show me the source/reference(s) in support of your claim. You seem to be biting new comers, I'm not sure if someone already have been told you. Anup Mehra ^✈ 13:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the archives to WP:RSN generally, read WP:MIRROR for additional stuff about Global Vision, and read WP:COMMONSENSE wrt snippet views. Or, as an example, this recent comment about the latter. There is not much I can do to convince you that the People of India stuff is crap and relies on (often unattributed) Raj sources if you cannot see the damn books in the first place, so you will just have to AGF in someone who does indeed have a vast amount of experience in this field and has seen the books. Blimey, you cannot even read my nomination correctly, so there is not much good faith likely to extend in the opposite direction: your Google search link refers to items mentioned in the intro, ie: mirrors, poor sources, and stuff that relates to clothing and a surname. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple publications ([1], [2], [3]) show at least that this caste (also spelled Chaddar) do exist but none of these are even close to establishing notability as required by GNG. I would suggest a redirect if it can be established that it is a sub-caste of a notable caste (that has an entry here), but none of the sources I have seen say so. --SMS ^Talk 21:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs expansion not deletion. --Enlightinggemini (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 12:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you propose that we expand something that has no apparent significant mention in reliable sources and the claims of any source for which seem to be making an assumption that the article title is an uncommon transliteration? There is nothing to prevent creation of an article under a preferred transliteration if notability can be demonstrated. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I've just spotted that you've made only 35 contributions since you have registered your account. Please accept my apologies if the above sounds harsh. Some relevant policies to consider are WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2013 (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.