Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reddygandla

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 redirect to Reddy. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reddygandla[edit]

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

Reddy123456789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contested prod. Subject appears to be some kind of caste in India. However, the article is so badly written that it's difficult to understand what it's saying. No sources. Cannot find sources that describe what this article is talking about. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is vague to the point of near indiscernibility, but to me the decisive point is that, even if I don't know what a Reddygandla is, nobody else knows either. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (or speedy) delete. It's borderline A7 as a group of people without a clear assertion of significance; the main reason I hadn't deleted it was to see if it developed any. With no sources cited, it clearly fails both notability and verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glenfarclas' search seals it for me. Speedy delete as WP:NONSENSE. (C.Fred, feel free to work your magic.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree that it qualifies for speedy deletion as nonsense so I am declining that nomination, but I do agree with C.Fred that it's borderline A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reddy - sub-castes/social-groups aren't generally considered notable in their own right. Per this rather tenuous GBooks search - [1], it almost certainly exists, and there's probably paper coverage of it. A sentence in Reddy will do fine for now though. Claritas § 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable subcaste. Can be mentioned in a single line within the Reddy article.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: only until "sub-castes/social-groups aren't generally considered notable in their own right" assertion has an explicit and relevant notability policy reference will I change my !vote to delete.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific notability guideline for sub-castes, but from my experience in AFD, almost all of them are merged or deleted, due to lack of notability and available sources. Claritas § 21:21, 17 July 2010 (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.