@Cunard: That version was a brief description with zero references and an external link to the company's website and hadn't much to recommend it. I think it would be better to take a fresh approach and ask the questions which should be asked: was the company ever notable, is it notable now, can reliable sources be found which demonstrate either of those things, and does it merit an encyclopedia article here. – Athaenara ✉ 14:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I was refering to the 2010 version; the April 2020 version was a thoroughly fluffed up company description worthy of its own website, not an encyclopedia.) – Athaenara ✉ 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe Skyhorse Publishing qualified for WP:G11 so recommend overturning the speedy deletion.
The article as at the time of deletion (which is substantially the same as the version Cunard refers to above of 27 April 2020) would properly qualify for deletion as CSD:G11. However, there are satisfactory versions in the 13-year history (I'm talking going back to 2015 or earlier) which are encyclopedic. I would restore and revert to the version as of 15 July 2015, which is the latest version prior to the addition of advertising/PR type content. Anyone wishing to selectively add back references or material considered neutral and relevant can then do so. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the 27 April 2020 version of the article from the Internet Archive meets WP:G11, which "applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopaedia articles". The article is not "exclusively promotional" and does not need "need to be fundamentally rewritten". It even contains material that the company's management would likely prefer be omitted:
In June 2017, a group of Skyhorse employees announced intentions to hold a union election in order to join United Auto Workers Local 2110. [19] According to a National Labor Relations Board count, staffers fell short of the votes needed on November 30, 2018, with 18 voting for, 28 voting against, and an additional 23 votes submitted but counted as ineligible ballots. [20]
In April 2018, Skyhorse announced “a major reorganization” with job cuts of 16 full-time positions and plans “to reduce new titles published by ‘approximately 25 percent’ in 2018” compared to 2017, when it released 1,120 titles.[21] Publisher Tony Lyons announced the decision in response to a decline in net sales by 19% in 2017, and issues related to paper shortages and book distribution.[22]
Rather than reverting to a revision from five years ago, I would prefer that the article be restored to its latest version with any promotional text (which would be minimal) removed afterwards. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've said that already, and I have already indicated my disagreement. I know your preference is to go into great length in deletion discussions, but mine is not. To be clear I am making my restore strictly conditional on a revert to the 15 July 2015 version or earlier. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11 A speedy deletion is not valid unless all revisions of the article (or page ) are properly speedy-deletable. The revision of 20 April 2020, in my view, did not warrant a G11 deletion, although there is some promotional contentr which could be edited out. The version of 15 July 2015 is not even arguably promotional, so the G11 in any case cannot stand. If restored to the 15 July 2015 version, the sources from later versions remain in the history, and can be used to update to a fully NPOV version includiung more recnt events. I am going to temp undelete so that non-admins can judge the actual versions, not just the ones that IA has stored. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to 2015 version I don't really have anything else to add that hasn't been said already, but I think Stifle is correct and I support that resolution. SportingFlyerT·C 17:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the 19 May 2020 revision of the deleted article. While it has some promotional material, a substantial portion of the article contains encyclopedic content about the publisher's history, its imprints, and the books it publishes. I intend to remove or edit the promotional material, remove any material sourced to unreliable sources, and then restore most of the content. I invite editors to comment about what content in the 19 May 2020 revision should be retained and what content should be deleted.
I'd agree with reasoning of this request with and note the talk page and perhaps the logo really ought to be automatic without request, however the list does look unwieldingly lengthy and omitting Skyhorse Pub, Skyhorse Pub. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc, Skyhorse Publishing Inc. and possibly , Skyhorse might seem appropriate although their are some inbound links from "what links here" that would remain broken if they are not restored. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11: Tag with issues if necessary, and give Cunard or elseone time to some out issues min 48h or a week or longer if necessary then raise AfD if still necessary. Pragmatically its best to avoid speeding'ing long standing articles with a number of edits as it put pressue on admin resource to be responsible for viewing many versions of an articles history.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Though the article probably required more cleanup but deletion per G11 wasn't justified.Siddsg (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Not sure if I have any type of authority on these things, but it looked to be a very good article that was noteworthy and had lots of links to other articles and a range of references. Naihreloe (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Caste-based prostitution – no consensus to overturn, endorsed by default. This is an inherently emotive and difficult topic, and the AfD itself was somewhat entangled in general discussion about inclusion of this information in a variety of other related articles. Both the AfD and this DRV have both been substantially complicated by good-faith disagreement over inclusion policies: a reasonable argument can be made that there's significant coverage of "caste based prostitution" as a separate topic to satisfy the bulk of WP:N but also that WP:NOPAGE still makes it a better encyclopedic treatment to deal with that information in context, taking into account other considerations like undue weight. It's completely possible for both of these viewpoints to be generally valid, and so this ends up being something of an editorially stylistic decision: there have been quite a few assertions that it's a WP:POVFORK, which seems heavily disputed, but it's also entirely possible for something to be an undesirable fork without specifically being a POV fork. Ultimately, here does not appear to be anywhere near a consensus that the overall decision was incorrect. I would note that original close also explicitly allowed a redirect to an appropriate target; this does not seem to be generally objected to, and it remains an editorial decision as to where that goes. ~ mazcatalk 10:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I was thinking of doing a Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because this is part of a broader issue but I think it is not appropriate to go to ANI before doing smaller steps first. The issue is that a group of users go edit ninja for any article that are seemingly negative concerning India. This same issue happened with another article I was not involved in and it made another user retire over this issue [1]. It is difficult to save an article in an afd because their numbers help win vote tallies. There is a lot of work for closers to go through and going against a vote tally might come off as too bold. I mentioned as a reminder in a “note to closer” on the afd that it should be more than the polling process as mentioned in the Wikipedia policy on article deletion. However, the reasoning given for delete by the closer was only that it was ‘clear consensus’. The justifications given should count as well and the justifications given to delete would come off to those uninvolved with the issue as poor and insincere, I believe. This group asked that the article be redirected but any mention of the content in the article to be redirected to is also removed. Any mention at all in any other article is also deleted with reasons that will keep varying as long as it stays deleted with sometimes acrobatic arguments, such as in this rfc. JustBeCool (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just struck content that had been removed above ... see [2] for request and reasoning and its all essentially good faith stuff and pretty minor point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems to have been no attempt to discuss their good faith reasoning with closer with prior to bringing to DRV as might have been best practice per WP:DELREVD. Such an attempt may not have been successful but the attempt should probably have made before raising DRV.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: (if not thrown out for non discussion). I'm far from the best judge of these things and I'd normally wait for others comments but I take on board concern of WP:CFORK and cannot justify any reason to overturn. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't Cactus Jack's contribution decide the matter?—S MarshallT/C 07:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as keep per my detailed reasoning in my userspace subpage here; it's quite lengthy so I'm linking it instead of posting it here directly. Disclaimer: I !voted Keep in the AfD discussion. −−−CactusJack 🌵 07:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closer does not appear to have erred or failed to follow the deletion process. This was a POV fork of prostitution in India and we don't do those. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this user participated in the AfD, in which they !voted Delete. −−−CactusJack 🌵 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Discussions are independent of one another and it is not usual to place notes like this under people's DRV contributions. See poisoning the well. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep as per Cactus Jack. The argument that this is a POV fork does not overcome the multiple sources presented in the AfD showing that this is a separate more specific topic, with GNG-passing significant coverage as a separate topic not limited to one specific caste. Arguments that this is a POV fork should have been discounted. Arguments that this did not pass the GNG did not stand up. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. This is a difficult one, so I'm going to get into the weeds here. The delete arguments were a mix of WP:GNG, WP:OR, WP:NOPAGE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:POVFORK (and, uh, the Wikipedia:Duck test for some reason which escapes me). As an AfD regular, WP:NOPAGE really doesn't come into the equation, so let's cross that off. I don't have access to the article, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE typically applies to lists/directory structures/miscellaneous or trivial information - it doesn't appear to be relevant here. Cactus Jack and Justbecool made a convincing argument that WP:GNG is met by providing heaps of sources. The assertion the sources weren't independent didn't seem to be a viable argument. Therefore it's logical to conclude the information isn't WP:OR and passes WP:GNG. That leaves WP:POVFORK. POVFORKs are typically a content issue, where someone tries to get around the fact there's an edit war by creating a page with new information - as far as I can tell, and I may be wrong on this because I can't access old logs, the page was "upmerged" and then the information was deleted from the redirected page, which would actually be a reverse POV fork. There's nothing suggesting the article's not neutrally written, just that it's a POV fork, which doesn't seem to be the case. Therefore, all of the deletion arguments fail, even though there's more of them, and the article should either be kept or the information allowed to be presented at the page that the redirect currently points to. SportingFlyerT·C 17:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given last comment pragmatically temp-undelete requested. Also despite my endorse above I would have no objection to a good faith attempt to create a draft in draftspace that could be accepted back to mainspace if a DRV review established sufficent quality reached, no content was removed before accepted back to mainspace and WP:CWW attributions were respected on return to mainspace. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the AfD wasn't initiated as a "we should delete this article" but rather a "should we have this article," I find it concerning a sock made the initial redirect, but am not sure it really changes anything. SportingFlyerT·C 19:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved but Cactus Jack and SportingFlyer make an excellent case to overturn. For what it's worth, I very much got a vibe of WP:IDONTLIKEIT wearing a thin WP:SYNTH/WP:POVFORK costume from many of the delete votes. Crossroads-talk- 19:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep - both POVFORK and NOPAGE get invoked a lot, but the former very blatantly doesn't apply (to the point where I'd suggest anyone invoking it is likely to be acting in bad faith), and the latter ... I don't see it, and nobody actually makes the argument, but rather they just link it (but it's a very subjective kind of guideline, so ... they could really believe that. OR and GNG also get invoked, but neither invocation comes with any kind of explanation of why people think they apply (and GNG very blatantly does not, OR ... I really see no evidence it does, though I'd be more opening to seeing an argument, because it's not impossible) WilyD 12:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the closure. The article was a clear cut breach of WP:POVFORK and failed to address the fact that none of the sources treated the subject as a separate subject, thus it failed WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 04:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this user participated in the AfD, in which they !voted Delete. −−−CactusJack 🌵 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Regardless of bad faith continuously assumed by the OP, WP:POVFORK and WP:NOPAGE was never addressed, just like it hasn't been here. This is why most participants agreed that we don't need the article. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this user participated in the AfD, in which they !voted Delete. −−−CactusJack 🌵 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
POVFORK can't be addressed because the argument was never made, and has no hope of being made at all. It's very clearly a cover for IDONTLIKEIT, which you can't invoke for a delete. There's no POV, so there no POVFORK. WilyD 07:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was already made clear that separate article on a non-notable subject isn't warranted especially when anything "caste-based" is covered on the particular caste' page which the OP never touched. It's a no-brainer that the page is a blatant violation of WP:POVFORK and WP:POINT. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's very far from being a "no-brainer", though, isn't it.—S MarshallT/C 14:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was made clear that some editors don't think an article covering multiple castes is warranted. That is not quite the same as the claim by Capankajsmilyo above that It was already made clear that separate article on a non-notable subject isn't warranted. The argument that there is a systemic issue, commo9n to multiple castes, was made, and only addressed by pointing out that it was covered in some articles about individual castes, and that many examples in the article came from one of those. The argument that a wider issue needed to be covered in a wider article was not rebutted. It is far from a no-brainer that this was a POVFORK. I for oen see no POV used in the creation or writing of the article, nor does it seem to be a FORK of any existing article. A proof-by-assertion that this is a POVFORK doesn'tork.how what it is a fork of, and how the fork was guided by a POV in writing, or selection of sources, or whatever. No one did that in the AfD, and no one has yet done that here. In the AfD, POVFORK was a vague wave, not a policy-based argument DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
POVFORK can also mean creation of an article which heavily duplicates other. That was the case here. Siddsg (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it can't. That's a fork, not a POVFORK.—S MarshallT/C 14:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I had seen this AfD and deletion was predictable. The crux of "delete" argument was that no reliable sources significantly cover the subject separate from the content which has been already covered on the articles of particular castes. Failure of WP:POVFORK, WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE were legitimate concerns. Others also raised potential of creating more POVFORKs as "keep" would set a bad precedent. Overall, the "delete" argument was stronger as it remains undisputed. Siddsg (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Sock strike Levivich[dubious – discuss] 03:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain of the etiquette, but for what it is worth users Aman Kumar Goel and Capankajsmilyo were involved in the original afd, the same way Cactus Jack and Crossroads made the disclaimer that they were involved. An argument made here and in the afd was to the effect that caste based prostitution is not treated as a "separate subject". If I understand correctly, I believe the argument is that the sources talk about one low caste group at a time and not an overall topic affecting multiple castes. I am not sure if sources mentioning a topic affecting one group at a time and not affecting multiple groups is grounds for deletion. In any case, if one looked at the sources, they mostly follow individuals or one tribe at a time but do refer to the wider phenomenon. For example, the first source in the article [3] followed the Bachhada but mentioned "caste-based prostitution" in reference to multiple groups (Bachhadas, Bhedia, Bhantu, Nat, Kanjar, and Sansi]]. The Al Jazeera article [4] followed the Nat Purwa but mentioned, "A Pan-India phenomenon? Nat Purwa is not unique: academic Dr Anuja Agrawal , who has conducted research on the subject, said it's difficult to estimate the exact number of such "prostitute villages" in India. 'They are spread across [the Indian states of] Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan,' she said. 'And like Nats, for other communities such as Bedias, Faasi and Banjar. Prostitution has emerged as a strategy of survival among several such communities.' Agrawal says all these communities are inter-linked: 'They share a distinct past. They were all nomadic tribes who settled with their communities in small villages.'" The other Al Jazeera article [5] also follows another group, the Perna, but discusses in length the wider history affecting other low caste tribes, "Mainstreaming will be a trickier proposition for DNT communities that have found their way into the sex trade." The external link [6] is a report about "ritually sanctioned caste based prostitution" affecting two groups "the Bancharas and the Bedias" and not one. JustBeCool (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLUD and don't repeat the same AfD argument. Siddsg (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The same delete argument that this is not a 'separate subject' was repeated from the AfD, so why is only repeating the rebuttal not allowed? That is if I was repeating. It is User Capankajsmilyo who at the same time is saying "anything "caste-based" is covered on the particular caste' page which the OP never touched". I don't know who to please, either I am repeating or I never touched the issue. JustBeCool (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It does not appear that the concerns of a biased spinoff, e.g. in Wiki-colloquialism the "pov fork" were adequately rebutted in the discussion, the closer weighted that argument properly, thus the close as a deletion appears sound. Also, is the tagging of "this user voted to delete" by a user who voted the opposite a proper procedure? It seems a bit unseemly. Zaathras (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's polite to mention that you participated in the AfD discussion when you vote at DRV. The good news is the users who close DRV discussions are some of the most experienced in terms of deletion on the project, so even if you don't mention you participated in the AfD, if your DRV !vote matches your AfD !vote it will likely be discounted by the closer (if considered at all) unless there's an additional argument that you're making (for instance, if you vote to keep the article, the person closes the AfD as a delete, and then you endorse the AfD.) So it's fine to point it out, but I don't specifically remember seeing it, and considering the user here is one of the two users who made the strongest arguments in fighting to keep the article I think it would be polite to stop doing this, as it creates more of a battleground mentality than we need. SportingFlyerT·C 00:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, will remember that going forward. This is only my 2nd DRV and clearly I still have a lot to learn. −−−CactusJack 🌵 00:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why such an opinion would be automatically discounted. If they just regurgitated what was said in the deletion discussion, sure, but if the person articulates an endorsement here that addresses the closure and not the discussion, that should be counted. Zaathras (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're involved in the AfD, you may be biased towards the outcome of the DRV. I'm just mentioning the closers understand and weight this when closing. If someone makes a good argument even though they were involved, a closer will know what to do with that. SportingFlyerT·C 19:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus or keep. After the first relist, Cactus Jack provided a number of on-point sources that make a rather convincing case for notability. The subsequent "delete" opinions, like many before them, did not really address the sourcing situation. Rather, they cited numerous policies such as OR but without making clear how, in the light of these sources, these policies require the deletion of the article. Under these circumstances, the "keep" side made, in my view, substantially stronger arguments, and their opinions should have been given more weight by the closer. Sandstein 08:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even after the relist, most of the participants agreed the page should be deleted on the grounds that it was a POVFORK and failed notability on its own. Vague handwaves against those arguments were unconvincing. Closure reflected that pretty well. NavjotSR (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you check, those who are asking for a delete in this drv are the same participants who originally wanted the article deleted in the afd, and as I understand those do not count if there is a vote tally. Also if you check, it is those making the argument to keep who are the ones providing long, detailed specifics both here and in the afd and those asking to delete do little more than vague links to any wikipedia policy with little explanation, right or am I seeing this wrong? JustBeCool (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely "wrong" since "Delete" easily outnumbered "Keep". NavjotSR (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article, while unpleasant, appears to be notable.the article was unbiased and had a neutral POV. I think this is an IDontLikeit case as there wasnt really a reason the article was deleted in the first place. Heyoostorm (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I had voted for delete because this subject wasn't notable on its own. I still don't see any attempts to expand existing articles before creating this small redundant fork. Kaweendra (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep The arguments made for deletion seem to be motivated by IDONTLIKEIT since they don't address the points made. In the page history there is basically an edit war over this content which seems appropriately sourced. PainProf (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So an account which was created days after this DRV is already throwing a lazy cheapshot "IDONTLIKEIT", but "don't address the points made". NavjotSR (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly that is inaccurate, secondly this response could be a bit more civil. Thanks. PainProf (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC. I think keep or NC would have been within discretion. I don't think delete is. I feel Cactus Jack's arguments were persuasive enough that keep was probably the better close, but given the close was to delete and I view NC as being within discretion I would prefer overturning to NC but could support either. Hobit (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't persuavive since editors still agreed that article should be deleted. See this reply on AfD to that citation spamming by Cactus Jack. NavjotSR (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. But facts outweigh opinions. And arguments that the subject wasn't notable fall apart when sources are provided showing that it is. Doesn't do a lot with POVFORK, but just knocks down the lack of notability arguments to the point that they have very little weight. The only argument against the sources after they were presented didn't really seem to hold water. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The article was a POVFORK for starters and failed WP:GNG. That said, the appellant has not exactly raised any policy-based issue with the closure. desmay (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the DRV appelant hasn't raised any policy-based issue with the closure, but you see, others subsequently in this discussion have raised some very grave and serious issues indeed. I don't know where this idea that the article was a POVFORK comes from and I think that idea is entirely fictional. The reason why it didn't fail GNG was exhaustively explained during the AfD by Cactusjack.—S MarshallT/C 23:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been trying to figure out what POV is claimed to be being expressed in this article and how this article gets around a "disagre(ment) about the content of an article or other page". Anyone care to explain that? I just don't see how anyone has justified that claim either here or in the AfD. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The very "POV" is the title itself, the usage of shoddy sources (NGOs, primary sources) to push such POV made it even more blatant and was already made evident from numerous comments, such as that one of Otr500. desmay (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: what POV is it pushing?—S MarshallT/C 09:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The closer User:Spartaz had informed last month that he is not active on Wikipedia and no notice when they would be back any time soon. Does anyone know what the policy should be next? JustBeCool (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters, as the person who closes the deletion discussion is not the one that closes this review discussion, it would be a conflict of interest otherwise. When this discussion has run its course, someone else will determine its fate. Zaathras (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid closure. Nothing here has been said which would require AfD's outcome to be overturned. Enough editors raised a number of severe issues with the creation of the article. Tessaracter (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion the discussion suggested that this was a fork and all the content was already covered elsewhere. For the record admins whose decisions are under scrutiny are involved for the purposes of the outcome and therefore cannot close the a DRV of their own close. SpartazHumbug! 18:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The afd mentioned this was covered elsewhere but cited the article of the tribe Banchhada where that article has the sentence, "Banchhada (or Banchada) is a tribe in central India that is traditionally identified with prostitution". That is hardly "all the content was already covered elsewhere". Much of the content would not necessarily be relevant to the articles on each caste group anyway, as mentioned previously in detail to the point of being accused bludgeoning too. In any case, that different parts of an article's content are covered in other separate articles is not a criteria for deletion, if I understand correctly. JustBeCool (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:DEL-REASON a content fork is a reason for deletion. I would have expected Caste-based prosition to have been stood up at section level in Prostitution in India in the first instance, and perhaps Prostitution in Nepal revisited first, and other Prostitution in XXX developed first to avoid CFORKs. I have little doubt a quality Caste-based prostitution could be created but needs careful consideration to avoid CFORKs before mainspace, and this didn't happen in my opinion in this instance.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because it is the right thing based in the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep or no consensus (I did not participate in the AFD) - per Sandstein and SportingFlyer's arguments. If all arguments are given even weight, it's no consensus. But on my reading, the keep arguments were substantially stronger: they showed that it met GNG with multiple independent RS. The POVFORK argument wasn't really shown; rather, it was just asserted ("clear POVFORK"). (I notice the same bare assertions in this discussion.) Asserting it's a POVFORK isn't the same thing as demonstrating it's a POVFORK, and delete !voters answered these assertions by pointing out that the content is not covered elsewhere. For this reason, I think the keep votes should be weighed heavier than the delete votes. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 03:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A lot of the delete votes were variants of WP:NOPAGE, which seems to apply here. The Sources do talk about prostitution as it relates to caste, but mostly in relation to specific cases. So yes, the argument is that it can be mentioned in other articles, but it doesn't need its own dedicated page and to do so may also introduce a non-neutral POV in suggesting there's more widespread caste-based prostitution than the sources say there is. In short I would see a solid consensus to delete here, and I think the closer called it correctly. — Amakuru (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to "Redirect to Prostitution in India". The delete arguments were flawed as the content is suitable for Wikipedia, but the article suffers some problems. I read a consensus to fold it into Prostitution in India. This option was commonly pu tin the AfD and not rebutted. Similarly, many of the "delete" !votes referred directly to non-delete non-keep rationales such as WP:NOPAGE. Many clumsily alleged POVFORK without detailing what the POV problem is and where the neutral content is. The article, Prostitution in India, is distinctly lacking in material that was covered by Caste-based prostitution, at least in terms of explicit structure. I consider the page to have been a premature unilateral WP:SPINOUT of Prostitution in India. Redirect to Prostitution in India, and resolve the many details at Talk:Prostitution in India. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
