Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marath

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marath

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

Not at all a notable subject, completely fails WP:GNG. No references to verify the subject's notability. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 11:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing problems aside, Indian/Pakistani caste names should be notable per se in my opinion. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All these caste name related pages are just of 3 to 4 lines or maximum or paragraph or so. There are also no references available to present the information. If needed for the names to be recorded in the encyclopedia. All such articles can be put under an article something like List of India castes or something like that.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - Subject is not supported by significant reliable sources. I could not find any decent online sources using a Google search. -- Taketa (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note, however, that we already have a Maratha, of which I take this is a variant- or mis-spelling. That article makes this one superfluous, since is somply one of many castes that extended across the subcontinent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this has been a common occurrence where it's completely unsourced and barely and contents, this is not acceptable and thus would be best restarted. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 15 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.