Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brahmin Gotras

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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew, and no delete !votes from other users are present in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brahmin Gotras

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

Unsourced and already better as Category:Brahmin gotras. No usefulness seen as list. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as complement to category per WP:NOTDUP and as navigational list of articles per WP:CLN. It should be obvious that "unsourced" is not a deletion argument; what matters is whether the information is verifiable, and the nominator implicitly concedes that it is. We also must consider the potential of an article per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, not its current state, and the list obviously can be sourced, not to mention annotated and otherwise expanded. So let's not see any more wasteful and counterpolicy nominations like this. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can appreciate your gesture to retain useful information but we should not humor it for your incompetence of the subject. We see many inclusionist who keep crying on how everything can be sourced and then see no edits on any articles by them and end up giving false information to readers. Did you bother and see that majority of the blue-linked articles are not actually about gotras? Or did you bother and see if the articles included in the category are of gotra? Further did you bother and see if these are Brahmin gotras? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently have no problem with the category, so if the subject is fine when presented in category form then there shouldn't be any problem about it in list form. If there are entries that should be removed because they do not qualify, remove them. WP:ATD is policy, and AFD is not for fixing editing issues. And your nomination did not claim or present an argument that the content is unverifiable, just that it was presently unsourced and "better" as a category. So one doesn't need to be familiar with the specific subject area to see that your nonspecific arguments fail on general policy and guideline forms. At best you have a WP:TNT argument, though you have not articulated it as such, and WP:NOTCLEANUP is a good retort to that essay anyway.

If, instead, you'd like to present an argument that the subject itself is unverifiable, OR, etc., then please do so, and I probably would not have a response to that, but the category would be equally affected by that argument. postdlf (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let the shit prevail! I withdraw nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:01, 5 July 2016 (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.