Deletion of Kulshreshtha

Comment: Per . No secondary sources. Not easy finding good ones in English, but http://www.vansham.com/kulshreshtha/ this one seems to indicate we're dealing with a community of almost 3000 identified members. Have no problem userfying to a sandboxspace so it can be improved enough to justify later inclusion. Wikipedia policy cautions against use of primary sources without proper care. There are lots of assertions arguably sourced by a primary, but no required secondary to verify the interpretation of the wiki-contributors. Lacking those secondary sources we have zero verifiability, so this article as of this timestamp is by definition original research, no matter how accurate or even notable. So delete then userfy is the best course of action, unless someone adds secondaries before the close. Mere editing can't fix this. This threshold demands sources, or at least the presumption of
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: The articled was CSDed for |A7, but the present article is not at all about a person. That said, I vote to delete as the article does not have any kind of references nor any reliable sources found from searching the web. I don't think any real research has gone into the history of the caste. IMHO people in India tend to brawl about their caste a lot (they even keep it in their names) - so a lot of material in the article might be NPOV and OR. &mdash; ''':en
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:A7)