Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rom baro

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 October 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Special K(KoЯn flakes) 16:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rom baro[edit]

Lacks notability, possible hoax and no references. Dicdef. Quick Google search turns up a few results, but not enough for a decent article. Belongs in Wiktionary if notable, but not here. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination because it is decently sourced and bigger than a dicdef, and to save this discussion dragging out any longer. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 16:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources; probable hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced but even if it was sourced (and notable!), belongs in Wiktionary. MvjsTalking 10:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the library, folks. Shii (tock) 05:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I guess I need to respond to the lazy argument that this is non-notable. The concept of a "big man" in pre-industrial hierarchies is taught in Anthro 101 and the rom baro is a prime example. As all cultures are different it should not be merged, although maybe a general article about the hierarchies of Roma society should be created. There are no Google hits because Roma are severely understudied. Shii (tock) 05:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting because sources were added at the last moment by Shii. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 16.

Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the sources just show that this is a WP:Dictdef.Yobmod (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with rationale already provided above by Universal Cereal Bus (talk · contribs), Mvjs (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs), and Yobmod (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, already more than a dicdef, and 61 Google Books hits show it is obviously expandable into an article about the concept rather than the word. (And even so, encyclopedic articles on words are perfectly acceptable here.) —An gr 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The discussion, verified to a source, of how a baro is selected is encyclopedic content, not part of a dictionary definition. The article needs expansion, not deletion. Alternatively, it could be merged to an article about the hierarchal structures in Roma culture, or a potential new section of Romani society and culture. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update – I've added two more sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a dictionary definition which at best warrants one or two sentences in the Roma people article. Either way, WP:WINAD firmly applies. JBsupreme (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you admit the possiblity that this article can become more than a dicef? 210.134.98.134 (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There won't be any problem recreating it later with more information. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has plenty of information already to avoid deletion. Even in its current state this article doesn't come close to violating WP:WINAD. This article is no dicdef. —An gr 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a section of Big man (anthropology) just like the one on Papua New Guinea Big man system section in that article.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hey, the content is has now been sourced. Thanks to whoever did it. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delist this nomination from list of India-related deletion discussions - nothing to do with India here. --GPPande talk! 17:31, 25 October 2008 (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.