Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caste-based prostitution

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. A redirect is possible but no consensus where and the content appears to already be in potential targets. We do have a clear consensus that we don't have this page. Feel free to put a redirect in as an editorial decision. Spartaz Humbug! 15:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caste-based prostitution[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Caste-based prostitution (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)

This article I created was redirected to Prostitution in India. However, any mention of this topic in Prostitution in India was also removed from the same group of users. Varying reasons were given, citing that the term was made up and the content was not supported by the sources but was speculation. This topic is mentioned in multiple third party reliable independent sources, not just the ones cited in the article. It was a start, with enough material available to grow. I did a RFC about it and from my understanding the article can be kept but it should be tried through a AFD avenue so I brought it here. JustBeCool (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pointy creation which fails WP:OR, WP:GNG. Article provides false impression by misrepresenting sources that only people from certain castes are allowed to engage in prostitution or otherwise prostitution is limited to a very few castes and that is absolutely misleading. Just because some people justify their engagement in prostitution by using their caste, doesn't means that their profession becomes "caste-based".  Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is clearly about women and young girls being forced into prostitution because of their caste, not them freely choosing to do so and trying to "justify" it. Crossroads -talk- 04:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where you read that? The Guardian makes no mention of being "forced".[1] Most common source here only say they were "forced into" prostitution during British rule. Then source also goes into details that how "Prostitution has emerged as a strategy of survival among several such communities." CodeSlashh (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The individuals in the castes are being forced into prostitution. Crossroads -talk- 05:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: This appears to be a procedural nomination, and as such, it does not appear that the nominator wishes to delete the article, since they created it; they should probably be considered a keep vote. Crossroads -talk- 04:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capankajsmilyo. Nearly whole article is about Banchhada (also referred as Bacchara) and needful content already exists at Banchhada which already covers about their prostitution. CodeSlashh (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article also describes about Bedias and Pernas. Either way, that would not be a reason to delete but a reason to add information about the other castes traditionally involved with inter-generational prostitution. JustBeCool (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Perna, I only see mere claims made by a random NGO, which is not WP:RS. CodeSlashh (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nominator does not want the page deleted and there's no reason to do so. The topic is clearly notable (e.g. [2]; [3]; [4]) and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But still there is nothing which Wikipedia hasn't already covered on more specific pages. Looking at your sources, this say "Chauhan belongs to the Bacchara caste, a community where women are the primary breadwinners in their families". Banchhada already got details about prostitution.This is about Badi people and already covered at Badi people. This (from page 87) mentions Bacchara, and again Banchhada already got details about prostitution.
Castes are based on identity but originally based on profession. Without a doubt there are tons of castes in which a particular profession is shared by the most members. Why do you need a page about their profession when page about their caste already exist? CodeSlashh (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers the topic as a whole, even if it may or may not be mentioned in the articles of individual castes. For example, the history of the practice has similarities among the different castes and so is covered in this article and measures taken to stem the practice nation wide or region wide could be talked about in the article as well. JustBeCool (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By cherrypicking statements of random activists. CodeSlashh (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning "cherrypicking statements", it was you who brought up that information already exists in the articles of individual castes so if you are changing your objections to be about sources then use the same sources used in those articles. JustBeCool (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To the point from user Desmay and D4iNa4 about original research. User CodeSlashh started deleting half the page including sources after this discussion started which makes this discussion misleading but from looking at the history of the page, it is citing reports on this issue by the The Indian Express [5], Public Radio International [6], The Quint [7], Pacific Standard [8], Al Jazeera [9] [10], The Kathmandu Post [11], The New York Times [12], Los Angeles Times [13] and The Guardian [14]. That NGOs were interviewed as part of their reports is not disqualifying a source. JustBeCool (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "User CodeSlashh started deleting half the page including sources" Lie much? CodeSlassh only removed 2 sentences which appears to be justifiable since you are misrepresenting sources. 2402:3A80:85D:D5E0:8C2E:CA21:45C6:5744 (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)— 2402:3A80:85D:D5E0:8C2E:CA21:45C6:5744 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is more appropriate to give the history of the phenomenon in an article like this since there are similarities among many of the different castes involved and where in India it is more concentrated as explained by the University of Delhi sociologist cited in the Aljazeera article [15] who was researching the phenomenon. JustBeCool (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just went through the sources myself, and find that the subject is indeed a POVFORK of Banchhada. I am also displeased with the motives and incompetence of the creator who nominates his own creation for deletion in order to justify creation of POVFORK. 2402:3A80:85D:D5E0:8C2E:CA21:45C6:5744 (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)— 2402:3A80:85D:D5E0:8C2E:CA21:45C6:5744 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Castes were historically profession based thus this fails WP:GNG because the coverage is about the history of the particular castes than any "caste-based prostitution" itself. If you are going create articles about professions related to caste then you are simply WP:POVFORKING content. Mohanabhil (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; clearly meets GNG and is well-sourced. Also it's clearly not just about one caste. Some commenters seem to be missing the point that this is about a type of human-rights violation via coercion; this phenomenon is distinct from any individual caste. Claims about OR and unreliable sources are mere assertions with no evidence. See especially JustBeCool's 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC) comment. Crossroads -talk- 18:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite familiar with NOTADVOCACY, thank you, and thankfully I'm not engaging in it. I explained how it is a distinct topic and where its notability comes from. Crossroads -talk- 05:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not understanding the rationale for delete while the rationale for keep is clear and solid. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. The above WP:ILIKEIT does not convince that we should be creating articles on castes by targeting the profession when the castes themselves are profession based in first place. Are there any sources which talk about "caste based prostitution" without talking about the particular castes? If not, then this is just a POVFORK. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:OR. The article is misrepresenting sources to spread false notion that prostitution is allowed for certain castes in certain regions, or all members of certain castes are required to become prostitutes. Orientls (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOPAGE. Sources discuss a couple of particular caste members but the title of the subject isn't treated as a separate subject by any of the sources, thus Wikipedia should avoid treating this as a separate subject as well. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Caste is not an exclusively South Asian phenomenon, nor is the intersection between caste and sexual exploitation. Clearly the subject is not OR, the simplest of Google searches reveals otherwise; asserting that this as a FORK with reference to an already existing article of a specific caste in India is simply incorrect.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. What happened here is that passing mentions of a term have been cherrypicked and an article has been created by adding own synthesis in violation of WP:OR. Contrary to the sources, which talks about castes but don't treat this as a separate subject.  Lorstaking 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the sources is not about a particular caste in general. The topic being reported on in the sources are literally about prostitution based on caste. As subjective as the objection of sources need to "treat this as a separate subject" is, I don't see how the sources can be any clearer what their topic is. JustBeCool (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand what sources say then that is your fault. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to generate a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 01:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete to Prostitution in India. Even if castes are relevant in neighboring countries, this would be the appropriate place to discuss this per WP:NOPAGE. Not clear that this is a distinct topic, from say class-based prostitution. Reywas92Talk 21:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that sources don't treat "caste based prostitution" as an independent subject. Also agree that term is being cherry picked and used in wholly wrong context. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "independent subject", independent of what? Perhaps you mean the WP:GNG policy that sources must be "independent of the subject", which they are. Perhaps the question is about what the sources treat as the subject. The sources include "How the caste system forces women into prostitution" [17], "Nat Purwa: Where prostitution is a tradition" [18] "The Indian caste where wives are forced into sex work" [19], "Caste System Binds Nepalese Prostitutes" [20], if the sources are not about this subject what other subject are they possibly about? JustBeCool (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop WP:BLUDGEONING. We already have Forced prostitution so you are only engaging in WP:OR. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how specifically this is original research. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete As per Reywas92's reasoning. JohnmgKing (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crossroads. The topic is clearly notable independently of any other articles on aspects of the topic. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 03:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Delete What a creepy article as per wp:or and wp:synth Shrikanthv (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: This appears to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. OR and SYNTH say nothing about "creepiness" of articles. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:IRS. Statements by NGOs are not WP:RS and article about all of these castes already exists. As for the rest, you need to familiarize yourself with WP:ILIKEIT and  WP:RGW. Lorstaking 07:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those VAGUEWAVEs have anything to do with my rationale for keeping the article. If anything, many of the delete votes can be characterized as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a trend I've noticed again and again on politically charged AfDs about India-related topics. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 08:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--per references listed above; this meets GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing proves that this is a notable subject, but merely a term being misused to create an article when the term is only spectrum many other subjects. WP:OR and WP:NOPAGE are absolutely relevant. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete: Per the Duck test. This is a self-professed POV fork, even if actually unintended, and it is clear that dispute resolution should have been followed. As many should know POV-forks is reportedly "undesirable" on Wikipedia. I think there is enough to be included in the original redirect (Prostitution in India), since brothels are included. This would seem to be the same thing as class-based prostitution, unless someone offers proof that "lower castes" would not be equivalent to "lower classes", and apparently related to street prostitution. From what I read it is common practice to wait beside a road for customers. It might be interesting to know what could be considered "politically charged" about prostitution in India? From what I understand it may be one of the oldest "professions" in the world so likely practiced in every country in the world. "Remember the Five pillars"! -- Otr500 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duck test is for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. For someone, citing the five pillars by your signature that is plenty of not-good faith you are assuming. There is no evidence of collaborating among users asking to keep this article any more than there is coordination among the talk pages of users asking to delete the article and to be fair they are probably just looking through the user contributions in this dispute and its related disputes. As has been mentioned by others multiple times before concerning POV forks, there is nothing mentioned on other articles about this topic to be forking away from and I am not sure what this has to do specifically with "brothels" which makes it not worth an article. JustBeCool (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: I am aware there are more votes tallied to delete. As you already know, it is the validity of the explanations themselves that count and as any contentious issue, like in this case the caste-system, articles relating to them are going to have a lot of passion to delete. JustBeCool (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork of Prostitution in India. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caste-based_prostitution&oldid=964380883"