Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes (2nd nomination)

:{{la|List of Other Backward Classes}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Other_Backward_Classes_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|List of Other Backward Classes}})

This incomplete list is difficult to edit because of its size and yet one of the primary reasons for creating it was to allow sorting to be done by various criteria, thus meaning that the proposal to split rather defeats the object. It relies entirely on ambiguous primary sources that in turn often have other ambiguous primary sources which we have not considered, and it fundamentally just reproduces lists that are freely available on official websites. The official classification of Indian communities is in a state of almost permanent flux and yet the nature of the sources makes this very difficult to maintain and thus to reflect accurately. It is also more often than not impossible to link to articles about those putative communities even when we may have them because naming conventions are not consistent either in the sources or in our articles. To be honest, this was a good faith creation of dubious merit because those involved in its creation simply lacked understanding of the complexities, as was reflected on various talk page and in ANI discussions. Some things are just best left alone. Sitush (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

3

• Keep The list passes WP:LISTN, being based upon an official list maintained by an agency of the Indian government, and covered in other sources such as [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GulBDMgxcU0C Encyclopaedia of Backward Castes]. It is comparable with equivalent pages which we maintain for other countries such as List of federally recognized tribes or List of ethnic groups in China. To suggest that it is too difficult to do this for a major country like India seems to be special pleading. Difficulties of size and nomenclature are quite common on Wikipedia and should be addressed by editing effort, not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

:*All that has happened since the last deletion discussion has been negative. This article is not progressing, it was kept on the basis that the evident problems would be fixed and while, yes, there is no deadline, there is a clear structural issue that cannot be resolved. I am fed up of people who know nothing about this subject claiming that it can be sorted out. It has not been, it will not be and it cannot be. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

::* We already have a substantial page and its size is a problem of success, not failure. Your nomination seems to have been provoked by the suggestion of another editor that the article be split. This is grounds for a speedy keep, per WP:SK, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion". Warden (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

:::*No, my nomination is based on the reasons given and if provoked at all was because of having to revert yet another poor contribution a few hours ago. Please do me the courtesy of assuming good faith and not personalising this. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

::::* In the most recent section of the article's talk page, you responded to a split suggestion by saying "It is not even worth splitting and should instead go to WP:AFD". And, just now, when I started to improve the article by wikilinking the first entry in the list, you have immediately reverted. The problem in getting this article further improved seems clear - it's your disruption of good faith activity. See dog in the manger. Warden (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

:::::*That comment was weeks ago and I left things alone while waiting for further input, which did not appear. Your link was indeed original research and you only have to peruse the discussions to realise that. You did peruse those discussions before !voting here, of course. Now start assuming good faith. - Sitush (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Obviously this topic is notable, it is of encyclopedic interest (caste, ethnicity, and religion are the basic cross-sections in India), and it appears to be something that can be sourced. I do see Sitush's logic in wanting to delete, because caste-warriors on Wikipedia are among the most annoying trolls and this page will likely always be a magnet for trolls.Frankly I would be surprised if this page stays in the same form for a day. However, because it is of major encyclopaedic interest, I still suggest keeping it, but policing it (which I am happy to help out with).Pectore^talk 00:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:*Splitting does not resolve the big issue, which is that of maintaining something that changes frequently and impacts so significantly on the lives of people in a country where, like it or not, people are killed in large numbers every year because of a perceived social status. Yes, we are not censored but splitting this into regional articles will mean that it really does add nothing to what the official lists provide and yet will mean some poor soul (me, probably) having to keep track of 29 articles instead of one. The only sensible justification for the existence of this list in the first place - it has had protracted discussion - was that it would enable people to see the situation across a multiplicity of states etc rather than one at a time. That was why the table sorting and overlinking was considered necessary. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:* The list has existed for about 260 days but has not yet had 100 edits. Most of the activity seemed to be during its construction and the list of contributors that I extracted today was:

::edits

::30 Doncram

::26 Sitush

::16 Rich Farmbrough

::4 Orlady

::3 AnomieBOT (bot), Yogesh Khandke

::2 Colonel Warden

::1 JL-Bot (bot), Titodutta, Yobot (bot), Fram, Koavf, 115.112.231.109 (anon), GDibyendu, Auric, GoingBatty, CarlKenner, PalakkappillyAchayan, 59.177.3.237 (anon)

:The bulk of these contributors seem to be veteran editors and gnomes, not the hypothetical horde of caste-warriors and trolls. There seems to be no need for special policing or restrictions.

:Warden (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

::That is common, then it all explodes. It's a shame that I can't canvass because it appears that the only way you'll accept the wisdom of my wide experience in this sphere is if 100 other people say the same thing. The crap really hit the fan when you start linking articles because it is then that it becomes apparent as a list. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:::* What we need is evidence, not canvassed opinion. The article gets a reasonable level of traffic - about 450 hits per day - but the evidence of its editing history shows that it is comparatively uncontroversial and unproblematic. I have more trouble maintaining list of redheads, say, but find that quite manageable. Warden (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

::::*Go look at the periodic problems that arise on, say, Nair, Ezhava or Yadav. These things come in waves, often co-ordinated off-wiki, and they are massive time-sinks that almost always result in resort to ANI and to blocks or sanctions under ARBIPA. Go speak to Boing! or Qwyrxian, Blade or Fowler&fowler (nb: not linking to avoid accusations of canvassing). You are writing as someone so unfamiliar with the topic area that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karen_of_the_Andamans&diff=569447291&oldid=569444586 you even thought] an Other Backward Class was a Scheduled Tribe and that these official lists are somehow set in stone even though there have been over 1,200 challenges to them - it does not bode well. - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

:::::* As I understand it, those other articles are problematic because of the claims made about the early history of those castes and communities which are difficult to resolve because their distance in time. This list seems much less open to dispute because it documents their present-day status which may be readily verified, being the business of a dedicated government agency and bureaucracy. And even though those other articles are problematic, they still exist as blue-links, don't they? We haven't deleted them and so we shouldn't delete this either, as it seems free of such wrangling. As for the scheduled tribe issue, this was suggested by a source, "Today the Karen form a small but important community of the island since they are trying to attain the status of Scheduled Tribe in India, which would entitle them of special privileges and concessions granted to underdeveloped groups of the country." Such nitpicking is not a reason to delete as it is explicit policy that our articles may be imperfect. Warden (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

::::::* Well, your understanding is incomplete. For example, the OBC lists feature in arguments concerning the Ezhava/Thiyya relationship. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or move to user space. The topic of this list is undeniably notable, but the difficulties inherent in maintaining the list -- and the strong reactions that the topic of caste can produce -- are substantial reason not to attempt to reproduce this list in Wikipedia. An analogy: The United States Internal Revenue Code is a notable topic of great interest to many people, and aspects of it are described in several Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia has not attempted to reproduce or explicate the entire code -- because it's not within our capacity to do so, and anyway the minutiae aren't encyclopedic topics. Similarly, Wikipedia can describe aspects of the topic of OBCs in the article Other Backward Classes and related articles, and those articles can describe the national list and the lists for individual states, but (for reasons explained by Sitush) republishing the complete list -- and maintaining it -- exceeds our capacity.

:I'm amused to see that my 4 edits to the article are misinterpreted as indicating my commitment to the article, since my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Other_Backward_Classes&diff=527072086&oldid=526006156 very first edit there] was to start the first AfD. (None of my edits were substantive.) --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

::* The point of listing the editors of this article is to show that the claims of "strong reactions" are false. Your first AFD resulted in a finding of Keep but here you are again making the same failed argument even though there's no evidence that having this list in mainspace causes trouble.

:::*The outcome was {{xt|Consensus is to KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted}} I contend that the fixing has not happened and that it cannot. Rich Farmbrough was making an attempt at it but in fact that has just made matters worse because it has bloated the list. And since the primary purpose - the claimed encyclopedic benefit - was to enable sorting by name, region etc, there is no point in splitting it. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

::::* The previous AFD was made on the grounds that the list was incomplete because [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Other_Backward_Classes&oldid=527072086 at that time] it was just 1.6 Kb with only two entries. Since that AFD was closed, the article has been expanded massively so that it is now 406K with numerous entries. The expected work has been done and you're just nit-picking now. Issues like sorting are a matter of presentation, not deletion. Warden (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete - Notability is not the only reason why an article should be maintained, there is also its maintenance factor, is the article worthy maintaining, editing, reading? I think this article goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia, trying to trace a list with communities is hard because there are thousand of communities out there. Citing only the fact that is unencyclopedic would be just a circular logic, but also mentioning that it is interesting is not a reason for keeping, anything is interesting to someone, somewhere. Also it is not every useful information that should be kept within wikipedia, there are thousand of subjects which are interesting, but are not maintained within WP just because it is too complex, or too simple, also wikipedia is not a place for partisan information. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 15:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep No, maintainance is not a factor in keeping/deleting: AfD is not meant for cleanup. Given that delete !votes recognize the topic is notable, they are reminded of our deletion policy, that requires that what can be fixed by editing, is fixed by editing, not deletion. We have no deadline to do this tomorrow, either. --cyclopia^speak! 20:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

:*That's fine in theory. In practice, it means that a hopelessly inadequate list of dubious currency will remain on a major encyclopedia for more or less ever and a day without proper maintenance and with a potential impact on any and all of around 400 million people. It has been said time and again that there is a systemic bias on en-WP which means that the coverage and quality thereof is poor. It is not helped by the interventions of what amount to well-intentioned policy wonks. This is a WP:IAR situation - when was the last time most of those !voting keep here actually really got involved in this subject matter? When will be the next time? The list does this project and its subject no real service and that is a situation which will only get worse. Seriously, if those !voting keep here want to improve our coverage then get involved in doing so. There is no deadline, sure, but there is also a valid argument that we as a project would be WP:DICK if we allow this egregious, westernised encapsulation of an ambiguous primary source to exist simply because our policies say it should do. I sometimes despair of the potential impact of those who stick their fingers into areas about which they know little and, alas, this is one of those occasions. Go take a look at just how many India-related articles have had more or less zero improvement since they were tagged for this, that or the other since, say, 2006. How long is this "no deadline" piece of string when it reflects so poorly on us and on a population the vast majority of which are incapable of amending it due to lack of internet access and illiteracy? Fix it or lose it ... and we've tried to fix it. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

::*I can't help but recall the casualties that have already resulted from good-faith efforts to "maintain" this article. After its creator got a topic ban that prevented him from working on it, Rich Farmbrough (one of the few editors brave enough to undertake massively complex coding projects) decided to do the heavy lifting of creating and populating the humongous table -- and (after failing to fix some big glitches in his work) was rewarded with a one-year site ban for violating his editing restriction by using automation to edit. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:::*I admit I know zero about the topic. But the point is that Wikipedia is an eternal work in progress. It cannot be anything else. We can't expect our articles to be all correct, polished and perfect -in fact, 99% aren't. This is one of these cases. I understand the situation is frustrating: in this case you should stubify and/or tag it, so that readers know that it is in a sorry state and why (In general, WP should do more to explain precisely to readers what are problems with an article). As far as I hear, User:Sitush, you do a truly excellent job in this area, and as such I respect and listen to your advice carefully. However I cannot support to solve this issue, when the topic is clearly notable and worth caring of, simply by slashing the article. --cyclopia^speak! 07:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

::::*One of the difficulties inherent in this and other lists of India's castes and classes is that they get built by people who know zero about the topic and assume that a valid list can be created by taking a list from a government source, formatting it, and adding links to Wikipedia articles that appear to be about the groups on the list. This is perilous because the topic of caste in India is much like some of Alice's observations of Wonderland in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland: the more you learn about it, the less you believe you know. I don't know very much about OBCs and caste, but I've learned that the national lists and the state lists of OBCs don't necessarily agree with one another; OBCs apparently get listed and de-listed with some frequency; "class" names are inconsistent, confusing, and ambiguous due to a complex of factors including differences between languages and orthography, as well as controversies over definitions of the classes; and a Wikipedia article a caste/class/group that appears to match a name on this list may or may not be about the same group that is an OBC. Stubifying the article but leaving it in article space, and thus potentially inviting another user to repeat Rich Farmbrough's misadventure, is a bad idea. The topic of lists of OBCs can be effectively covered in the article Other Backward Class and possibly in limited-scope articles like List of Muslim Other Backward Classes communities; it is foolhardy for Wikipedians to attempt to create and maintain a comprehensive list of OBCs when the Indian government's official lists are a complex mess. --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:::::*If there are difficulties with sourcing, then these could be explained and perhaps the apparent GNG requirement could be shown to be unmet. I have no issues with a merge. Again, I do not know the topic but I am worried when we try to deal with problematic articles by killing them, that's it. I just hope other solutions can be considered. I suppose that the topic is at risk of being recreated in some form or the other anyway, if deleted, so I am unsure the maintainance concerns are fully abated. Anyway, I hope more knowledgeable editors will chime in. --cyclopia^speak! 14:27, 30 August 2013 (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.