Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Brahmin

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.

Result was Keep (WP:SNOW) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Brahmin[edit]

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

There are no "Brahmins" in Christians - "Brahmin" is a sanskrit word that denotes a particular sect of Hindu religion ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin. So stop this nonsense of naming and inculturing Christianity into Hindu fold. this act of "Inculturisation should be stopped", This is once again an attempt to convert people and spread the venomous christianity. So Delete this article or change the name to "Bauman" community as you have given in the page.

Moreover we have enough knowledge on religion of "Hinduism" and "christianity". We also have the enought knowledge to understand the wicked attempts of certain Christian group which live on getting funds from abroad that are begged to 'reap souls' in a cheaper cost; Either Delete this page or rename it! else we will delete it completely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilspaul (talk • contribs)

Keep and suggest speedy close. Sorry, it is not a sect of Hinduism. The term Brahmin in the context of caste/community refers to ancestors engaged in the Brahmin varna. The title shouldn't be changed either

Kasbee (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term "Roman Catholic Brahmin" appears to be extensively referenced and documented in multiple reliable sources, including scholarly sources. Whether the article should be renamed under the alternative term "Bauman", which also seems to be well sourced, is not a matter for AFD. Fladrif (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
Keep and suggest speedy close. I don't see any policy based reason to delete this article in the nomination. The article is surprisingly well referenced, and it apparently references a caste of Roman Catholics in India. Since "Brahmin" is also an established English word, and the references use that English word in this context, I don't see any problem with the content, either, and this is apparently all a content dispute. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's argument has no merit regarding the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Christianity in India is documented to have existed from its infancy. The article explains that this caste designation is distinct from Hinduism. Elizium23 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep under WP:SPEEDYKEEP criteria 2.1. The phrases from the nom: "This is once again an attempt to convert people and spread the venomous christianity" and "the wicked attempts of certain Christian group which live on getting funds from abroad that are begged to 'reap souls' in a cheaper cost." Show that this nomination was purely disruptive. There are absolutely no notability problems with the article. Any content/naming problems can be dealt with on the talk page. Ravendrop 00:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has enough of sources to prove Roman Catholic Brahmins exist. Either Delete this page or rename it! else we will delete it completely. I wonder what the nom means by this? Sounds like a threatening statement.—Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 11:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep classic case of IDONTLIKEIT. Either Delete this page or rename it! else we will delete it completely sounds like a legal threat to me. And it seems he is trying to delete Caste system among Indian Christians as well--Sodabottle (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSeems resonably well sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above - article is notable and nominator definitely has an ulterior motive here. Giant Snowman 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above and WP:TROUT the angry editor who needs a chill pill. "Either Delete this page or rename it! else we will delete it completely" - Is this an attempt at a threat to hack wikipedia or something? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011 (UTC)

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.