- 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chandala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination for User:Rayorpheus. I have no opinion on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original rationale, found here, reads thus: "The Word does not represent any community .It is a bashing term and it should be in the dictionary.The Article should be Deleted Immediately". UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 98k GBooks hits suggests that there is some significance, even though the article may be poor in quality. I'll do some digging on the subject but there is clear prima facie notability and we are not censored. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though it is used as a casteist slur [1] for a Dalit or Shudra, it is a historic term used in Hindu literature. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The original nominator has posted an additional comment on his rationale at Talk:Chandala#Deletion_of_this_article. I've asked them to post it here, though they have yet to do so. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for linking to that comment. I am afraid that the nominator is misunderstanding several things now. As well as Wikipedia not being censored and the term having a significant usage, their suggested replacement article title is POV-y & skewed towards the alleged present-day usage. They are also missing the possibilities for appropriately worded redirects and "see also" links. I've seen people lash out here before now due to frustration that relates to modern Indian social problems but while I do sympathise sometimes, it is not our role to engage in social engineering. The government of India has been unable to deal with these trenchant issues even though their constitution made many of the practices illegal from the very start of independence, so I doubt very much that we would have much impact even if that was our role. I stand by my "Keep" opinion above. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – no deletion rationale provided; significant term. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - some words may be used by the ignorant as slurs, but WP should not be prejudiced by this - there is here a clear meaning and historical and social contexts and background.--Smerus (talk) 20:03, 28 January 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.