Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulshreshtha

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. Consensus is that this sort of topic needs reliable secondary sources, not just religious texts as primary sources. Sandstein 06:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kulshreshtha

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

No assertion of importance or notability, unsourced. Has been previously CSDed. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The articled was CSDed for A7, but the present article is not at all about a person. That said, I vote to delete as the article does not have any kind of references nor any reliable sources found from searching the web. I don't think any real research has gone into the history of the caste. IMHO people in India tend to brawl about their caste a lot (they even keep it in their names) - so a lot of material in the article might be NPOV and OR. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced and badly written. Notability, if any, can not be established. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page creator left this comment on my user talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying create an article on "Kulshreshtha Community of India. I believe you have objections over the source of the information. The source is quoted in most cases. Example, Rig Veda, Garuda Purana whoch are all old Indian religious and spiritual texts. These texts also help in tracing the history of our culture. Other facts are based on real life findings about this community through research.

Kayasthas are the 2nd largest community in India. I believe information on prominent Kayastha communities like Kulshreshthas deserves a place on prominent databases. However, you are free to delete it or ask me further question if you donot find it suitable to be posted on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.mayank (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Kayasthas are the 2nd largest community in India". I really doubt that's even true. And if Kulshreshtha is related to Kayastha, why not merge the Kulshretha article along with the Kayastha article? — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 15:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would appear that 77.mayank is blissfully ignorant of the fact that religious scriptures are not considered reliable cources on Wikipedia.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course religious texts are RSs for their contents, just as any other primary source. Even if one considers them just as fiction, they're still the preferred source for what they say. What they cannot be used for is proof of the actual historicity of what they say, unless there is additional evidence. If this caste is referred to significantly in these scriptures, it's notable ; what is needed is sources for the present day significance. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:PRIMARY. No secondary sources. Not easy finding good ones in English, but this one seems to indicate we're dealing with a community of almost 3000 identified members. Have no problem userfying to a sandboxspace so it can be improved enough to justify later inclusion. Wikipedia policy cautions against use of primary sources without proper care. There are lots of assertions arguably sourced by a primary, but no required secondary to verify the interpretation of the wiki-contributors. Lacking those secondary sources we have zero verifiability, so this article as of this timestamp is by definition original research, no matter how accurate or even notable. So delete then userfy is the best course of action, unless someone adds secondaries before the close. Mere editing can't fix this. This threshold demands sources, or at least the presumption of. BusterD (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2011 (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.