Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism[edit]

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

No proof that a list of such origin exists. Cited sources show that there are OBC's among Sikhs but there is no evience of there being any list of such Other Backward castes — Frc Rdl 03:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to have been some edit warring earlier in the day resulting in the list being blanked. As it stands now the list is literally nonexistent. I have re-added the content that was removed so that we can have a debate about the article's merit instead of discussing the merit of an empty list. Acebulf (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that speak specifically about Sikh castes in OBC classification: [1] [2] [3]
Other sources to include in the article [4]
~~Keep~~ (changed to Delete) As it stands, the article needs a lot of work. I will be the first to admit I know nothing of India's caste system, but I've started by adding a few more entries. This will have to continue for quite a while for the list to be complete. WP:LISTN states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". As the sources above show, caste scheduled classes and OBC classification for Sikh groups, have been have been the subject of exposes by multiple independant reliable sources. As such it meets the notability for a list. Acebulf (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you know nothing about it then it probably would be better if you kept schtum because it is an extremely complex area and your sources above don't justify a list so much as a mention in the related prose articles (which already exists). - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: What is the relevant prose article which already exists? Acebulf (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism, Sikh Jat and any number of others. Look, you need to understand that anyone can profess any religion, therefore this would really be List of Indian castes, and that was deleted at AfD years ago. There are a myriad of reasons why such lists will never work, some of which I have mentioned in my reply to you at the related AfD to which you contributed a few hours ago. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how a general list of castes might be problematic, but I fail to see how a group of castes which have government recognition as disadvantaged would be too wide of a scope for an article. Is there something I'm missing here? Acebulf (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (a) caste has nothing to do with the Sikh liturgy but rather Indian society; (b) any caste can contain Sikhs, so it would have to become List of OBCs; (c) there have been over 1200 changes to the official lists in 20 years, including numerous corrections; (d) the official lists are ambiguous because there is no consistency in caste naming nor any certainty that a caste in one region is the same as one in another, even when they bear the same name; (e) we do not usually transcribe simple lists (see past AfDs about other caste lists, invariably deleted in my experience). I could go on but I get fed up of having to explain the same thing time and again. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think your point is well made and valid, and that you are right when you say that there is no good way to properly restrict the scope of the list. As such I have changed my opinion to Delete. Acebulf (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--This talk-page thread may be of some interest.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per Sitush's reasonings.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above or "per Winged Blades's" reasonings! - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2018 (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.