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. Consensus is to KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Other Backward Classes[edit]

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

This is a multiple nomination that also includes the following article:

For consistency with the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes, the lists of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes should be moved out of article space until they (1) are reasonably complete and (2) can be properly verified through reliable sources. The current lists are very incomplete, they do not appear to provide the kind of context that commenters familiar with South Asia seemed to indicate to be necessary at that recent AfD, and sourcing is weak. These issues probably can be cured, but it is misleading for the lists to be in article space in their current form. Orlady (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is necessary and appropriate to note that editor Orlady has followed my edits for years and long-expressed hatred. It is a pattern of long-term harassment and bullying. Here, he or she is again nominating an article that I started for deletion. I don't feel it serves wikipedia for this saga to go on and on. This deletion is not in good faith....it is biased, personally. And there are no good grounds for deletion here, IMO. I grant that the deletion nomination may attract some supporters, and some may choose to chide me for noting the pattern of harassment of this editor, and some may choose to perversely support the deletion for reason of supporting Orlady in the long-running Wikipedia-wide battling. Feh on that. --do ncr am 21:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A further piece of evidence on the negative quality of this AFD, is that no one, including the deletion nominator, has raised any question or complaint or comment about the content or anything else in the OBC list-articles. The appropriate place to raise some question, IMO, is first at the Talk page of the list-article. Editor Sitush has commented at Talk:List of scheduled castes, seeming in mode of sharing information, not questioning the validity of the list-article per se. No content or source or any other complaints have been raised at the Talk pages. --do ncr am 21:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are bullshitting again. This stuff and the general concepts surrounding it has been discussed extensively, and your lack of understanding of the subject matter has been raised on several occasions. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a clearly needed list-article, whose existence and development is a good start towards developing coverage of castes in India. It is an entirely a well-defined topic. Every item in it is verified properly by reliable source, the governmental announcement of the item being an officially designated OBC. Unlike for other castes, there exists a definitive source for this list. It is marked incomplete and under construction. The deletion nominator seems not to have familiarized self adequately with the topic. I suggest the nomination should be withdrawn. --do ncr am 21:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comments by Doncram were posted before I finished adding the second article to this nomination. --Orlady (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I note that the creator hasn't familiarised themselves with the topic despite all this being previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes, which was a discussion in which the creator participated. They did not have much clue then and they seem not to do now. The subject is more complex than it appears and I've already had words with them about it. Since having those words, the list has not developed in the slightest and, meanwhile, the creator has wandered off to produce numerous other seemingly poor quality lists on numerous other subjects and left this one standing with the appearance that there are only two "castes" in India. The format will not work. The only feasible way to present the information is as multiple lists, by state/union territory as, indeed, the Indian governments do themselves. This is in particular the case because naming conventions differ from one region to another even when they may be referring to the same community, and because there are both state and central lists. I also note that the creator still has not managed to comprehend that this is not a list of castes and therefore cannot develop our "coverage of castes in India". One is a list of "classes" and the other comprises mostly tribes and non-Hindu communities etc, even though it is called "Scheduled Castes". The lists merely copies freely available content published and updated on the web by the two official central list sources (one for OBC and one for SC). If it is appropriate to regurgitate this info on Wikipedia then fair enough but at least get your terminology right.

At the very least, this needs to be userfied and I'd very strongly encourage the creator to stop going about things like a bull in a china shop and actually listen to the people who know something about this subject. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with several assertions by Sitush in the above statement. --do ncr am 21:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you do, Doncram. That's the nature of ignorance. I'm already continuing my demonstration of your complete lack of clue at List of Other Backward Classes. Honestly, you are doing more harm than good here. - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Invalid nomination. Poor or incomplete content is NOT a reason for AFD. How do you think we built this fucking thing if it wasn't by starting from poor quality articles? Grow up the lot of you. Greglocock (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? "The lot of you"? So far, there is one for and one against. I am trying to find a workable solution. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 3 people involved in this AfD and it is not the right forum. You have a content dispute which should be resolved on the Talk page, and you have a bad AfD nomination which should be withdrawn. Greglocock (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed the Afd on the caste article and the only valid argument for closure/deletion there was lack of RS (in my opinion it was a poor but defensible position). Since this list is compiled from local government sources they are RS and so the arguments for closure must rest on something else. Greglocock (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in fact based on local government lists. It is based on a national list that differs from the state lists. I have no problem with this list article remaining if people are happy for us to basically reproduce what is already freely available in one place on the web. However, it really, really needs to be compiled in userspace and moved over when complete, preferably after being checked for accuracy.by someone who knows the subject a bit better than Doncram does This is pretty much what Sandstein} was getting at in leaving the door open at the original AfD. There are very good reasons why having a list such as this could be harmful to the project if presented in partial form. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I agree with the nominator that the list hasn't scratched the surface, I also agree with Sitush that this page would actually be a list based on lists, as I have indicated to Doncram. However his explanation makes me choose keep. I will copy the explanation here: "Yes, i actually think identifying that "Koli" or another group is named as OBC in some states (and list them) and not others would be helpful, and that other commonalities will be noted. This could "add value" and allow for more consolidation in the list (one entry for same name in all of its states) and a shorter list, or more room for extra description of each, than we might expect from your rough estimates. And, value is to be added is by making the list searchable and sortable in various ways (currently I don't know of an Indian government document that allows us to search for all instances of "koli", for example; one big list provides that searchability. We can handle pretty huge lists. But mostly value is created by providing, for each, a link to a corresponding articles (or indicating by a redlink that no corresponding article exists). It would be pretty much impossible for a person to rely upon the category system alone, or any other way, for making sense of India's many OBCs... And yes, Wikipedia does have the manpower to keep lists of thousands of items up-to-date where explicit sources are available (and it would not be a tragedy if the article was slightly out of date, sometimes, as long as it was explicit on what date it was updated through). It is rather a lot of what I do, e.g. in maintaining and developing within lists of historic sites (e.g. 85,000+ large List of RHPs and 2,400+ large List of NHLs) and many other lists like List of Masonic buildings that include other things, too. There exist List of bridges and List of ships and many other types of big lists... try Lists of lists? " I have highlighted the part that made me vote keep. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You seem to be saying that the lists have a place in Wikipedia because they have the potential to be useful. Please note that I have not asked for these lists to be deleted. My only request is to move them out of article space (i.e., to user space) until such time as they are sufficiently comprehensive and thoroughly enough sourced that they can be judged "ready" for article space. This would be consistent with the conclusion reached by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes, which deals with a closely related list that has similar issues. (This request is at WP:AFD instead of WP:Articles for userfication because there is no centralized process for "Articles for userfication".) --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for proposer what damage is being done to the encyclopedia by having it in mainspace where it will attract more editors? What benefit is gained by userfying this? Is this not deletion by stealth? Why not just stick an 'under construction' banner on it? Greglocock (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Caste" (together with related topics like OBCs) is a profoundly contentious topic. I understand that users who work on related articles are accustomed to getting death threats because the articles have offended people. Having lists that are incomplete and contain errors (due to matters like confusion over transliteration, combined with having a creator/maintainer who is still in the early stages of learning about the topic) are an invitation to further trouble. --Orlady (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten any death threats, and I really don't want "protection" by Orlady. Is this meant on my behalf, to "help" me, personally? That hardly seems consistent with Orlady's repeated attempts, and some successes, to have me blocked or banned. Orlady, stop with the obsession.

Is the proposal to move this to my userspace, or to Sutish's, or where? I really really don't think that Orlady wishes to delegate authority to me to develop the list-article and then to restore it to mainspace whenever I feel it is "ready". I rather think Orlady would never ever "approve" of any article ever developed by me, and would wish for some new gate-keeping review before the article could be promoted back to mainspace. This is not workable, it is not meant to be workable, I rather think it is meant to kill the list-article. --do ncr am 18:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern in creating this AfD was for protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, not any particular editor(s). (AfDs are about articles, not about users.) In requesting userfication, I didn't specify where these pages should be "userfied" to. That's not my concern; that's something to be decided by the people who want to work on the pages. --Orlady (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming good faith that the list will be expanded. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Poor quality nom In my opinion the nomination is poor because it draws a false parallel with the caste article. The reason for deletion for the caste article was The "delete" opinions argue - in some detail, based on the specifics of the discussion surrounding castes in India - that there are no reliable sources on which this list could be based. If this argument is true, then the core policies WP:V and WP:NOR mandate the list's deletion. As it happens, the "keep" opinions mostly do not address or rebut this argument; at most, they broadly assert that sources must exist, without however naming specific reliable sources that could be used as a basis for this list. The argument for deleting the list as unverifiable is also supported by the fact that three days ago, apparently without opposition, the list was reduced to the one entry (of potentially several thousand) for which a source is cited. Consequently, because the argument of unverifiability appears valid and has not been rebutted, the list is deleted. ie mostly about source verification. The sources here are local governement definitions, which would seem to me to be verifiable. Greglocock (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, I agree with you with a few corrections, the lists (per Doncram) will be based on government lists written in the Roman script, so no transliteration or RS issues. Also I am not saying anything about potential usefulness, it is Doncram who has made those promises, I say let us AGF. Regarding user space/main space debate I really don't know enough about how others contribute to an user space article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the article in my own userspace, and in general there are problems with userspace articles; they tend to attract less other editors' contributions because a) it is unclear if the "owner" wants the contributions, b) real discussions worth having will not happen because persons having disagreements will wait for the article to come back to mainspace, c) it is likely that any contributions made will not make it to mainspace. Another editor may create an article at the mainspace location. And some editors choose to move a userspace-constructed article to mainspace in an edit that copy-pastes and deliberately leaves behind any edit history. There may be a few exceptions, but I myself generally would not contribute to any article in anyone else's userspace. --do ncr am 18:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had an experience that is described above with one article that I created in my userspace.[1] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on how your experience with your incomplete draft of Death of Savita Halappanavar informs this discussion? I'm afraid I don't see the point you are trying to make, so you may need to expand upon your comment (if you still think it is relevant). --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic of this list-article was given a lot of attention in big ANI discussion which has been closed but not yet archived (currently shows at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Doncram on Indic communities). A lot was said there, but bottom-line about this list-article, Sitush did not oppose having this list-article, and somewhere clarified that he supports having this article. I can't find Sitush's exact statement on that, there; his statement might have been at another Talk page. And Sitush has edited at this list-article, and perhaps a new consensus has emerged at its Talk page (that no one ever wanted unsourced statements in the article, despite brouhaha to the contrary). With this list-article, there is a clear way forward: develop out the list, using the government sources. Proceed on long process of finding proper links to caste/community/OBC/SC articles, and of identifying where caste/community/OBC/SC articles are needed, etc. Sutish is participating in this, editing at Koli people article and at Kharvi article in recent days, which is due to those being possible links from this list-article. It would be a big step backwards to remove this list-article. --do ncr am 18:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, i think i was recalling Sutish's statement above (within this AFD): "I have no problem with this list article remaining if people are happy for us to basically reproduce what is already freely available in one place on the web." About what is available somewhere else, that is a lot of what Wikipedia is, it incorporates a lot of public domain and other stuff available, and then magically adds a lot of value by interlinking between articles, and so on. This material is not available in just one list anywhere, it is in a bunch of government documents. Sutish goes on: "However, it really, really needs to be compiled in userspace and moved over when complete, preferably after being checked for accuracy...." About accuracy, the list-article is under a lot of scrutiny. I think it can proceed with careful editing to use exactly the same wording as in the government document sources. And about it "really really needs to be compiled in userspace", a) there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline saying that notable topics must be developed in userspace, b) as discussed above that would probably kill development, c) it would postpone real discussion that belongs at the article's talk page. --do ncr am 20:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Made my mind up. Subsequent to creation of this list, it existed for over a week with just two named communities, which gives a massively misleading impression of India's OBCs even allowing for a standard "this is a partial list, feel free to add to it" type of disclaimer. Disputes concerning classification under India's reservation system give rise to riots and deaths, and Wikipedia itself has been subject to protests in India due to perceived misrepresentations (Yogesh was involved in one relating to maps). The WMF is trying to push Wikipedia in the subcontinent and poorly compiled lists such as this, which may well gain a high profile because reservation is a hot potato that never cools, will not assist their efforts. Unless this list is as complete and accurate as is possible, it does neither Wikipedia nor its readership any favours. This was in part a rationale used in the recent deletion & subsequent userfication of List of Indian castes. It is not a rationale based on censorship.
Despite the existence of official lists, sorting this particular thing out is not a trivial task. In particular, ensuring that the various linked articles are correctly targeted is going to take quite some time - and if they are not correctly targeted then we are going to see problems arising on all those related articles, which means even I (who have about 1300 Indic community articles watchlisted) would likely have to substantially increase my watchlist. As a subsidiary point, I would strongly oppose redlinking communities in this list, mainly because transliteration issues mean that there are many alternate names and just because the Govt of India opts for one particular version does not mean that it is the name by which the community is most commonly known. If userfied, the India project could be notified of its existence and might be willing to assist in development & to discuss precisely how to get the best out of the thing: userfication, in other words, need not be prohibitive to eventual existence. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sitush for coming back with a new opinion, but I disagree with your reasoning now to "userfy" it (again, to userfy it to where? and for whom to decide when it is mainspace-ready? why would any Wikiproject India members choose to contribute to a non-mainspace list with an uncertain path to mainspace?). The current list has not been developed out by me at least, because I agreed to pause in its development in the ANI episode opened by Sitush. To argue that the list should be userfied because it hasn't developed during this AFD and ANI episode is circular. The sources have not been disputed. The validity of the topic has been affirmed. The way forward is to develop it to a complete form, easily and quickly using the already accepted, available sources. I and a few others can do that, i am sure with plenty of scrutiny by Sitush and probably involving some discussion at the Talk page. This can be done without linking to separate articles; I agree that process of linking must go slowly. There will be content questions about what other article to link to, which is quite properly part of wikipedia development and which are best dealt with in Talk page of a mainspace article. Note there is a fine proposal at the Talk page of the article about principles for proceeding forward. There seems to be consensus there. --do ncr am 14:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I haven't really come back with a new opinion. I've gone from commenting to making a formal !vote.

You are misrepresenting me. The AfD was List of Indian castes and the ANI episode came after this AFD seemingly cause you to rush into action. There was a gap and you did nothing for a week or more. "Userfy" means what it says - you created the article and so it should return to your userspace. However, if you would rather it was placed elsewhere - for example, as a subpage in the India project space - then that is fine by me. Where it should not be at present is in mainspace. As with a lot of the NRHP lists and the continual discussions surrounding userfication, so too this one is an example of something that is inappropriate right now. Go work on it, go make an appeal for help/guidance etc and move it to mainspace when it is complete. After all, this is one of those lists that actually can be complete at a given point in time. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't support userfying it to a project space, either. I'd be a bit worried if it were in projectspace, that there would be some other kind of Ownership asserted for that, too, as if any editor could not move it to mainspace, and as if it were to be someone's (Sitush's?) prerogative to judge if it was ready.

2) About "As with a lot of the NRHP lists and the continual discussions surrounding userfication", I think you, Sitush, have some gross misunderstandings, based on repeated ANIs and other conflicts started or fanned by editor Orlady. That is basically refering to past hullabaloo, bunk, caused by the AFD nominator, Orlady in a long-running series of disputes that IMO amounts to harassment in the common English language definition of that term, and which, per the ANI about this OBC list-article, is headed towards an arbcom. There was and is no valid wikipedia policy or guideline supporting Orlady's obsessive interest in userfying pages on legitimate topics. I have in fact created many thousands of list-articles and individual articles on historic sites, and I believe that not one has been successfully removed permanently by editor Orlady, despite many many attempts. I think Wikipedia is by far a worse place for editors entertaining these attempts. It is not as if this or any other past attempt has been productive, in terms of the costs imposed (high requirements of many persons' time, contention driving people away) vs. benefits (dubious benefits: successful expression of disdain upon initial drafts of articles, contention driving people away if that is what you want).

3) Exactly, this can easily be a complete list, just by an hour or few hours editing using the available sources already identified. Enough with this AFD. I am inclined to go back to editing the article, now, though I had paused in deference to Sitush and others' stated concerns. No one, not a single person, has replied in disagreement to principles to go forward, stated at the list-article's Talk page. No one has the right to prevent development of a valid topic. --do ncr am 21:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the AFD template says, "Feel free to edit the article". --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm owning nothing here and if you think I or anyone else is then take me or them to ANI. Orlady is not the only person who has been challenging your creation of NRHP-related mainspace lists (another misrepresentation, perhaps?). I've not looked at the article talk page or this AfD for a few days because I needed to calm down a bit after the recent ANI report. I will be looking at it, obviously, but if you are going to keep misrepresenting things then I'm likely to find it difficult to work with you. ~~You've turned this AfD into~~ This AfD seems to becoming a personalised affair and it is going to deteriorate here and probably at the article talk page unless ~~you~~ people can back off from doing so. Why not open an ArbCom case, as was recently suggested? - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, building an article in project space is a fine alternative to userfying it. The point is that it should stay out of article space until there's broad consensus that the content is defensible (presumably meaning that it's verifiable and reasonably complete, that any known disputes and/or conflicts between authorities regarding classifications are acknowledged and identified through appropriate annotations, and that potential ambiguities and confusions related to the idiosyncrasies of transliteration and spelling have been explained through appropriate annotations). --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note on dates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes was started on 24 November. The two articles that are the subject of this AfD were created on 28 November; the list creator then explained his rationale for creating these lists in the earlier AfD, and discussion of concerns about these lists began in that AfD almost immediately thereafter. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes closed on 2 December. List of Scheduled Castes has had essentially no substantive editing since 28 November. This AfD was started on 8 December. List of Other Backward Classes had no substantive edits between 28 November and the start of this AfD, was expanded a bit on 8 December after this AfD was started, but has had no edits since then. The "Doncram on Indic communities" ANI started a few minutes after the last edit in the OBC article. --Orlady (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

In this edit I am indenting and identifying the additional statement by Orlady. Otherwise, what the hell is this "Note on dates" supposed to be??? It was presented, unsigned, small-sized and outdented and thereby seeming separate from Orlady's previous statement, as if it is an objective, normal part of an AFD, not requiring attribution. It is in fact a statement by editor Orlady, seems pointed towards discrediting me in some way. So what about any of the dates. This list-article was indeed created during the previous AFD on List of cases. And, this list-article was edited by me after the opening of this AFD, but not further after the opening of the ANI, which has since closed. Big deal, so what. And, sign your statements, from now, on, editor Orlady. --do ncr am

I'm not particularly capable of reading the mind of someone else, but the obvious point is that the chronology shows that you have been misrepresenting things in this discussion. I've no idea why - not being able to read your mind either - but that it how it seems. - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram,, your rhetorical question above - why would any Wikiproject India members choose to contribute to a non-mainspace list with an uncertain path to mainspace? - actually merits a response. I've no idea if WP India or anyone else would contribute to development, whether in mainspace or elsewhere, but nor have you. That moving the thing out of mainspace might cause it to have "an uncertain path" back there merely appears to demonstrate your own concern about the viability of the list. I have no doubt that it is viable but it will take many hundreds of hours of work to create in a manner that is useful, accurate, not undue etc, and it will require a fair amount of maintenance across thousands of articles thereafter. If you think that it would have an uncertain path back to mainspace, why on earth is it in mainspace now? - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[EC with Doncram] I outdented it again (the visual effect resulting from Doncram's adding it to the end of my comment was horrendous) and added my signature. It is not a statement of opinion. Rather, it is a collection of factual information that I compiled by looking up page histories, after reading various statements made here about the sequence of events. I figured that I could save someone else the trouble of wading through the page histories. Sorry that I forgot to sign it the first time. --Orlady (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like Rich Farmbrough is trying to do this either off-wiki or at least not in mainspace. Way to go. Perhaps we'll get the opportunity of a preview but, hey, anything is better than the current palaver. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Userify:I agree that such a list isn't a trivial task. Actually it is an understatement. The comment that the page hasn't been expanded makes me remark that a Afd tag doesn't make the place inviting for editors. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many articles are "rescued" after being proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron for more information. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Also see Wikipedia:Userfication. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into (or back into) the head article Other Backward class. It's a short list, and that article is also relatively short, there's no reason to have them separate. Do that, and a lot of the cited issues go away. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are going to be about 1,200 rows, similar to the few in the list-article now. Having the list in place, and with some existing rows, has established what "works", i.e. that the list format works and the use of the exact language from the source. Another editor is developing an expanded version off-line apparently, to put into list in one big edit, per discussion at Talk of the list-article. --do ncr am 23:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erk! can that suggestion in that case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The extremely incomplete character (and, thus, the misleading character) of the current OBC list has much to do with why I proposed userfying the page. (The list still had exactly two entries when I started this AfD, 10 days after the article was started.) The Schedule Castes list (also included in this nomination) is similarly incomplete. --Orlady (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense - to temporarily pull it into userspace until it's ready to go Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is/was never anything misleading about the list in its initial or current draft. It is clear that there are many OBCs. (Only 1 or 2 or 3 of India's many states are named, is one clue.) The links to the sources go right to lists showing more items. There is no "misleading character". What on earth is misleading? What possible mis-interpretation could anyone have? And, if you can construe one, would that not be addressed better simply by developing? Not an AFD issue. AFD is not for editing.

As discussed above somewhat, and elsewhere, there is disadvantage to "userfying". Elen of the Roads, to whose account would you userfy, mine, until I chose to deem it proper for mainspace or until you or who would judge it proper? Would you want to invent some new hurdle? There is no policy or guideline which suggests userfying.

As background, Elen of the Roads, I started this list as part of constructively addressing items in the List of castes, in whose AFD it was pointed out that some items on it should be considered OBCs, not castes. So, I started moving out a few, and providing explicit sourcing documenting that the items were OBCs. All well and good. Then the caste list was deleted entirely, taking steam out. So the OBC list languished for a few days, which is no big deal. Development by me then was stirred at first by the opening of this AFD, but then was stalled by the ANI that erupted immediately following that development (simplifying: pretty much due to ANI-opening editor's glaring misunderstanding that anyone sought unsourced statements in the list ... it was only his statements in the list that were unsourced, not anyone elses, and he misinterpreted a request that he provide sources). I agreed in the ANI to pause in developing this. It would only be going backward, to suggest that the combined scrutiny of many editors (here and in the big ANI and in the edits at the list-article and its Talkpage) has done anything other than verify that this is a valid list topic, that there are definitive sources available, and that there is a straightforward path ahead. --do ncr am 01:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why the deletion of one list that even you seem to acknowledge was at best tangentially connected should have taken the steam out of developing something else but, obviously, our emotions will differ. Contributing in this sphere of Wikipedia is bloody hard going and will give rise to some off-beat emotional responses from time to time. Equally, we will have to differ regarding your statements regarding what happened subsequently. It will all come out in an ArbCom case eventually, I guess.

Your "no big deal" comment is nonsense, sorry. It merely indicates what has been said on several past occasions: your ignorance of impact and subtleties etc. Am I always right? Of course not! Do I understand the subject and the ramifications better than you probably do? I guess so, and so do others who have tried to explain your recent well-intentioned blunderings. Anyway, I'm hopeful that Rich might be going great guns here behind the scenes, which is precisely where this thing should be right now. Get the official lists transcribed in some non-public way and then sort out how it works in the bigger scheme of things. This list is something that we need to feel our way through and I'm grateful to Yogesh for agreeing that compilation and implementation is not a trivial task. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, it seems I don't understand a lot of what you say. It seems to me that you are manufacturing disagreements. If you are committed to finding and expanding disagreement, you can probably accomplish that. But, what on earth is a "big deal" about a list of OBCs sitting for 10 days with no development. No misunderstandings possible on the part of anyone, even if it was viewed. You are not communicating successfully to me, anyhow. At the list-article talk page, you have also seemed to me to be manufacturing disagreement, stating that you disagree with some really basic principles, and not explaining how you disagree. I don't know that this matters; this is just feedback to you: I for one am not understanding a lot of what you mean, or where you are coming from, it seems. The main thing I get is a lot of hostility. In these recent interactions, you have used a lot of vile language and made a lot of accusations, using insulting words and obviously trying to belittle and insult, now with calling my editing "blundering". I am basically offended, sure, but still, I don't understand your point; you are failing to communicate anything much besides general hostility. --do ncr am 05:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just me that you seem not to understand, is it? You didn't understand those whom you opposed in the prior deletion discussion concerning a list of castes (linked above). Umpteen people tried to explain but you could understand none of them? That seems to be what you are saying. I've tried again at Talk:List_of_Other_Backward_Classes#Linking. I am not prepared to follow you round what will be several thousand articles while making the same basic point. This list needs a lot of work and it is not a clever thing to have in article space until that work is done. Any doubt should be dealt with centrally and not spread around. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some discussion continues at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes. Thanks. Umpteen people tried to explain what? I'm sorry, your comments seem to add up to supporting the existence of this list-article, in mainspace, as a useful central focal point for sources and assertions about OBCs. The alternative, to leave assertions about OBCs at scattered hundreds of other articles seems not good. And the alternative of moving to a userspace seems not appealing. I am utterly convinced, Sitush, that you would not accept my developing this list article in my userspace, and then returning it to mainspace. I'll comment below about your deletion of userspace article on Jat clans. --do ncr am 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two main points here are state of the article in terms of completion/content and weak sourcing. These largely classify as surmountable problems to the article, too little content and poorly written which are not compelling reasons to delete an article. Mkdw ^talk 09:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: This is not actually a request to delete these articles. It is a request to move them out of article space -- to userfy them, per WP:Userfication, until they are reasonably well developed. --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted." - WP:USERFY

The proposed plan of "moving" the contents out of the article space is essentially a removal and deletion from the encyclopaedia. If the encyclopaedia was published hardcopy, the contents would not be found in it and should be treated as a deletion. Ultimately, the landing page for this article will be a red-link and its contents will not be merged or redirected into another article space - that's a deletion. This is largely why userification is done through the deletion process. Userify is simply an essay that proposes an alternative in which the contents will accessible with out the need for undeletion process. Editors may userify any imminently deleted article regardless of consensus. As far as I know, userify is proposed through the deletion process, but it still is a deletion and not recognized as separate. Mkdw ^talk 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, that seems to be the best interpretation of "userfy" as an option: it means deletion. wp:Userification is an essay and very incomplete IMO. It seems to support userfying some articles to new users, at best, not anything like this situation. This is an AFD discussion, and only AFD reasons can apply. No one is pointing to any policy or guideline supporting deletion here. Opposition to the list-article just amounts to "I don't like it". --do ncr am 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication of an underdeveloped/draft article is exactly the same as if an article is started in user space -- and doesn't get published article space until it is sufficiently well-developed that it conforms with relevant Wikipedia policies (WP:OR and WP:V are particularly relevant in this case) and will not become an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Content in user space is not lost (it's still visible to contributors); it's just not published yet. (I speak from experience when I say that user-space content isn't lost. A few years ago I started a draft article about National Conservative Political Action Committee in user space. I started it there because I knew the topic could be contentious and I didn't want to take it to article space until I was satisfied that it had a reasonably neutral point of view and did not give undue emphasis to certain topics. Before I finished it, another user started an article on the same topic, found my draft in my user space, and asked permission to add my content to the article.) --Orlady (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Orlady, but I don't understand any objection on your part to this list-article, other than you don't like it. You mention sourcing as a possible issue, but no one has complained here or at the Talk page about the sources, which are government documents. In your opening the AFD you asserted that "sourcing is weak" but no sourcing problem has ever been identified. You mention original research as a possible issue, but there is nothing in the article that is questioned by anyone. Someone could possibly quibble with text by Sitush in the lede, but no one has. You suggest some articles could possibly become an embarrassment (which would amount to you feeling you don't like it?); I don't see how that can apply here. Could you explain what in the list-article is embarrassing to you, and how that amounts to anything other than you don't like it? You have gone around and around about it being an incomplete list, which is not a valid reason for AFD. If you feel that incompleteness is not adequately clear in the list-article, then please edit the lede to say that this is intended to become a complete list but is not yet one, perhaps conveying that there are many hundreds of groups that are identified as OBCs (factual, you can see that by looking at several of the state-specific lists). If you have tangible suggestions for the list-article, the place to make them is at the Talk page of the list-article. I'm sorry I don't see any reasonable reason for you to object to this list-article. --do ncr am 22:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to observe, from Sitush's Talk page, that Sitush just sought and obtained deletion of User:Sitush/List of Jat clans. That was difficult apparently because the list-article had a history of more than 5,000 edits, now all removed. I have not ever yet heard of that happening in Wikipedia; probably a substantial number of editors lost a good chunk of their contributions, just wiped out. Maybe it was all worthless, i dunno, but it seems sad. Anyhow the deletion/userification of that list-article was covered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jat clans where the Nov 23 decision was delete, with note that the article was userfied to Sitush's space "to allow the category to be checked against the list contents." Sitush at their Talk page says they did cleanup all the linked articles. If all the items in the category are cleaned up, then I don't happen to get why the list of them would have to be deleted??? But my point is: I don't want my contributions to this perfectly-well-sourced List of OBCs to be moved into some userspace, and then deleted by the decision of their "owner", or to have the topic usurped by another new list-article coming in. Again there have been supportive arguments for Keeping this list-article, including by Sitush by my interpretation of what Sitush is saying (tho Sitush probably disagrees), and there is no dispute about any source in the article, and there is no policy or guideline-based reasoning opposing the article, AFAICT. --do ncr am 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is extremely unfortunate to hear about User:Sitush/List of Jat clans. I have petitioned the deleting admin to restore the page and offered my userspace as a host if Sitush does not wish to host the repair efforts as decided on 23 November 2012. The conflict of interest seemed quite apparent in that case since Sit was originally a delete supporter, so to have the article moved to his userspace would invite the article and the contents to be lost. Mkdw ^talk 21:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As seems common, Doncram, you have completely misrepresented what went on. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What was misrepresented? I don't get anything but hostility out of that statement, sorry. --do ncr am 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I am becoming fed up of your pathetic references to civility and hostility. You are gaming the system and I think that you know it. You can be as polite as you wish and still be uncivil. I don't give a toss about the choice of words because the issue with civility is intent.

The list that you refer to is completed unrelated to this discussion and you seem to have raised it merely to distort the userfication issue under discussion now. Nowhere in this discussion have I said that this list should be deleted, whereas in the one that you refer to, yes, I supported deletion and then went along with what the closing admin determined. And, demonstrating my good faith, over a period of three or so weeks, I went through every single one of the articles listed in the userfied content and fixed the categories etc. My guess is that you will see that activity if you trawl through my contributions but it is a sideshow here and - mixing metaphors - you are grasping at straws. I didn't seek deletion of that list. It was nominated by someone else and I agreed with the nomination, based on a hell of a lot more knowledge than the nominator possessed. I've since disagreed with something else that they nominated. People are being sucked into irrelevancies here. As is the 5000 edit criteria: 100 good edits and 4900 bad edits do not a list make. You know nowt about it, sorry, and you are commenting in a snide manner about something that you cannot even see now because you are not an admin. Now take it to Arbcom, since you said yourself that this general issue surrounding your behaviour can only be resolved there. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you interpret my statements in those ways ("pathetic", "snide", etc.). I am not meaning to be snide. It seems relevant to point out that userification equates to deletion, and in a similar big India-related list-article that some/many editors have seen as a valid list-article topic. At this point, I genuinely don't get what you are saying. Or what you are projecting my "intent" to be. Here you just accused me of misrepresenting something, I asked you how, and your reply does not answer that. I'm gonna try not to reply further; this seems offtrack from the AFD discussion. --do ncr am 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the list content is still available via Category:Jat clans and its subcategories. Note that assignment of articles to that category hierarchy does not involve anyone making speculative/original researchy statements such as those recently added to Koli people, where it is now stated that groups with 'Koli' in their names are designated Other Backward Class in certain states (are these groups related to the Koli people or not?) and a note states that a "Goa group may be the group covered in Kharvi Wikipedia article." --Orlady (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not familiar with the Jat clan list but tend to think that an article with 5,000 edits had more than is completely captured by category tags. There's not even any means to know if an item is dropped by someone removing a category tag. If the list material was completely reflected in the categories, and that information is confirmed, why delete the list-article? One purpose it would serve would be to permanently index the articles...but whatever. About the statement in the Koli people article, there is a discussion for that at Talk:Koli people#Other Backward Class question. How best to word the mention of OBCs in the Koli article has been discussed there civilly so far. Making a tangible suggestion there for better wording could perhaps be helpful there, not here. --do ncr am 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is another procedural sideshow, Doncram. I mentioned recently that I am not prepared to play your divide-and-rule games across thousands of Indic community articles. It can all be dealt with centrally. If you want to stick a note on each article talk page that refers to the central discussion then that is fine by me but the idea that one should repeat the same arguments as I've mentioned at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes across all of those talk pages is ludicrous when, fundamentally, we are dealing with very poor primary sources here. Frankly, I've got better things to do in building this encyclopedia than stalking someone in the manner that you propose. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are asserting can be dealt with centrally. Again, if central consideration of adequate sources is the goal, then having a list-article for such consideration helps enormously, rather than some piecemeal approach to discussion at hundreds of list-item-type articles. I'm going to try not to respond further, this doesn't seem productive. --do ncr am 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are three belligerents here, (sorry for use of the word, unfortunately you come across as so), would it be possible to leave personal arguments out of this discussion. To me, Doncram's argument, that this list would add value to the government lists, made me vote keep, the list would have thousands of entries, Doncram has demonstrated ability (per him) in handling such a task, my vote is based on his promise, from the delete camp, can we have objective reasons as to why this list is bad for the project? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list in itself isn't controversial, it would inform X in State Y belong to OBCs, with a government list entry as evidence. Very objective. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2012 (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.