Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iyers

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 Keep. Yasht101 07:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

List of Iyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

The article is not a encyclopedia material as it is trying to superimpose peoples work and achievments with their cast or religious beliefs , is not approving with wiki guidline of Verifiability as the caste cannot be verified , and the article is also against wiki guidline of no original research, for which their is no reliable & published source exist and are not verifiable Shrikanthv (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep - caste can be verified and therefore it is not original research. The fact that this list, like so many others, contains unverified entries is not a reason to propose that it be deleted. Clean it up, as you will notice that I am doing both on that list and on umpteen others of a similar type. Should the list end up being very small then the correct procedure would be to merge it with the main article concerning the caste. This has long been the way and I see no reason to change now: we are not censored. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per Sitush's comment. In case the list ends up having little entries after cleanup, merge it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: moved to list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions postdlf (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clean up if required.LinguisticGeek 13:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Worthy information. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete : or merge with the article Iyers only if the personnels involved (people listed in the article ) are contributors to growing Iyer society or culture.

1) Scientists like C. V. Raman, whos work or achievment are not remotly related to he being an Iyer , grouping or listing the scientists here will lead to false sence of original research, and is wrongly being qouted in the list just because his ancestors believed in certain section of religious beliefs which is not even remotly connected to he being a scientist .

2) Informative significance(Knowledge) is zero, As for an encyclopedia listing the names because of their ancestors beliefs is not going to add any information or match with . and is not confirming with wiki CLN

3) I am still skeptical on verifiablity of source, as some sources qouted or either questionable or simply does not match with the actuall reference being qouted ! .

e.g

Ghurye, G. S. (1991). Caste and Race in India. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.

Zvelebil, Kamil (1973). The Smile of Murugan on Tamil Literature of South India. BRILL. ISBN 9004035915.

the refernces qouted above does not have any specialists of Iyers!! . and has been falsly attributed.

please come up with reason for "" Keeping"" the article rather than simply qouting "KEEP" without informing why it is worthy ? . Shrikanthv (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Struck out the !vote above because it's from the nominator, and editors are only allowed one !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : We can keep the article only if the persons being added to the list has something to do or have contributed to Iyer society and culture. Not just because his ancestors were born in it . agree ? Shrikanthv (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't see any problem with this list. Also, I don't think nominator needs to !vote for speedy delete as it's pretty much obvious what he/she wants. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Dislike this idea of lists, but this one is decently sourced, and lists are far preferable to categories.Pectore^talk 20:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sitush et al. This is the sort of list our core readership of students may need. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Why is the need of a separate article for the list of notable iyers? The important Iyers can be listed in the article Iyer. ChitranshGaurav 07:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - because as things stand, the list is long. I explained at the outset of this discussion that should the list become short then it is normal practice for this type of list to be merged in the manner that you suggest. Basically, it seems you are not objecting to the content, nor to the rationale for having such a list, but rather to where that list is shown. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Along with other similar lists such as List of Nadars etc. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:51, 30 April 2012 (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.