Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjana chaudhari

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anjana chaudhari[edit]

This article had been tagged with speedy deleted, but I am AfD to see if it can be helped. I am not expert on the topic nor do I read it. But the claims are so detailed, even if unsourced, that I don't think it should be speedy. Cerejota (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be from here Mahesana. Possible forking attempt?--Cerejota (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldnt have been speedy anyway, as it meets no speedy criterion. this is not what is meant by a "group", which means a club or band or the like, not an ethnic group or a nationality. DGG (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~It is apparently about a person as 'Anjana chaudhari' could only be a name~~. But, the article is written as if 'Anjana chaudhari' is a group of people. Salih (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a caste as per this. Salih (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the passage mentioning 'Anjana chaudhari' from Mahesana as it did not belong there. Salih (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable group of people. Salih (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice towards eventual recreation. Apparently Anjana chaudhari is a caste, and may someday deserve an article if enough secondary sources are found to establish notability. A google book/scholar doesn't show up any promising source except two passing references, and good sources, even if published, are likely to be offline or not in English. Currently the article is unsourced OR, and doesn't seem to contain anything worth preserving. Abecedare (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2009 (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.