Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maheshwari

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshwari (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)

Absolutely nothing notable. Lacks encyclopaedic value.

Western equivalent would be creating specific articles for generic surnames such as "Betts" or "Martinez" or "Devers". —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 15:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have surname articles Betts, Martínez (surname), Dever, plus all of Lists of most common surnames. Some are simply dab pages linking to notable people with that name, other go more in-depth into name origins etc. There is significant coverage (e.g. here). ----Pontificalibus 15:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is not a surname article but rather a community, another among the thousands of castes/tribes recognised in India. So don't get too hung up on the surname stuff. They will pass GNG as a community - plenty of sources as noted by Pontificalibus, at least some of which are reliable. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sitush... Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had just started adding names of people and places to that article, but Sitush has just informed me that that should not be done. It appears that at least some of the sources found in a search for "Maheshwaris" in Google books are about people called Maheshwari, not about the caste (this source [1], for example, is about one particular family - Ashok and Arun Maheshwari and Arun's wife Ameeta Maheshwari). If there is enough significant coverage about the use of this as a sub-caste name, then I would encourage Sitush to write an article, otherwise I don't see why this should not just be explained in the article Bania (caste), which supposedly they are a sub-caste of, but which does not mention them at all (it is also a stub). RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Actually, I do think that this should be merged into Bania (caste). If it is a sub-caste of that caste, then that article should have information about it. It currently has nothing, and it is also a stub. The sources I saw in the Google Books search show discussion of this sub-caste with the other sub-castes, leading me to think that WP:NOPAGE may apply. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – RebeccaGreen, Maheshwari is an ambiguous term, and merging/redirecting it anywhere doesn't seem like a good idea. People typing the term may actually want to search one of the biographies with this (sur)name. So we should either expand it as a caste article (provided it has received enough coverage in reliable sources) or just convert it into a surname/DAB page: there are at least 15 biographies with this surname. In short, the page should be kept in one form or another. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NitinMlk, as I mentioned above, I started adding names of places and people to this article - ie, converting it into a surname/DAB page. Sitush reverted those changes, and said that names of people should not be on the same page as the name of a caste/sub-caste (there is apparently a policy about this - Sitush directed me to WP:BLP, which however includes nothing about castes). That is why I suggest merging to the caste article. Otherwise, I would agree that the article should be kept. But I am aware that I know nothing about Wikipedia practice regarding articles about castes, so I am really going on the basis that we have at least two related stub articles (presumably others, if there are other sub-castes), and until they are developed to the extent that they become too long for one article, I see no reason to have separate articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I directed you to User:Sitush/Common#Castelists, which in turn has a partial basis in WP:BLP. Give me 24 hours or so and I will expand the article. As much as I am trying to avoid more than a few edits a day at the moment, I'll make the effort. I realise that you are unfamiliar with the topic area, so no worries. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, there is a long-standing consensus that BLPs should be connected with a particular caste/clan only if they self-identify with it, e.g. see this discussion. But at the same time, most of the South Asian surname lists contain these caste/clan mentions. In fact, Sitush himself solved the BLP-related problem by introducing a particular sentence in those lists, e.g. see Tandon.

Anyway, Sitush will fix it in one way or another. But I am listing here the people with this particular surname, just in case. :)

- NitinMlk (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it now. If someone wants also to create a disambiguation page then that's fine by me. Other things to go in it would include the Dalit Maheshwaris mentioned in the article (redirect to Meghwal), the names listed above and Maheshvari. I think RebeccaGreen found a bunch of placenames, too. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Great! NitinMlk (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Now that Sitush has expanded the single-line stub into an informative article, this seems fine as a standalone caste article. And one can create a separate surname list under the title of Maheshwari (surname), along with creating a Maheshwari (disambiguation) page to list the above article and all other similar pages. But that's not directly relevant to this AfD. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep mostly per Sitush's original vote, also per the later developments that took place during this discussion. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY, it is now an informative and well-sourced article. (I admit to being a little confused as to why people who adopted the name Maheshwari out of devotion to Shiva should mainly practise Vaishnavism rather than Shaivism, though!) If no one else creates a DAB page, I may have a go. If I do, I will ping you to check that it is OK and in line with community consensus. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• RebeccaGreen, I am confused about that Vaishnaivite thing, too, but various sources say it. I note that the Maheshvari article exists and is presumably connected in some way but it is of a very poor standard and the deeper complexities of Hindu deism go beyond my sphere of knowledge. Similarly, the Shiva article should cover it. There is another oddity but it is one I will raise on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GNG, kudos to Sitush for improvements, just wondering why this even came to afd as, at the very least, it could have been made into a disambiguation page/"List of people with Maheshwari surname"? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2019 (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.