Overturn as keep: This is a case in which a close that goes against the !vote count is called for. The guide to closing discussions states that Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.
In the collapsed box below, I've briefly summarized each of the keep and delete arguments presented in the AfD.
Summary of keep and delete/merge !vote rationales
Keeps:
Andrew Davidson: passes GNG, remaining issues best solved through cleanup not deletion
JustBeCool: per Andrew Davidson
My very best wishes: passes GNG, not a content fork
Crossroads: passes GNG, not about any one caste but about the phenomenon as a whole. States that claims about OR are without evidence and that it is a broad phenomenon distinct from any individual caste.
Flyer22 Frozen: "I'm not understanding the rationale for delete while the rationale for keep is clear and solid."
Goldsztajn: not OR.
CactusJack (myself): per Crossroads. Also added a later detailed comment providing several sources covering the phenomenon as a whole, and using these sources to argue that the topic passes GNG and is not OR.
Epiphyllumlover: passes GNG per above
Deletes and Merges:
Capankajsmilyo: OR, GNG
CodeSlashh: per Capankajsmilyo, content fork
Desmay: POV fork
D4iNa4: OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, OR, NOPAGE
Kaweendra: NOPAGE, INDISCRIMINATE
IP 2402: POV fork
Mohanabhil: POV fork, GNG
Harmanprtjhj: POV fork, NOPAGE, GNG
Orientis: OR, misrepresenting sources
Aman Kumar Goel: POV fork, NOPAGE ("the title of the subject isn't treated as a separate subject by any of the sources")
I will now go through these arguments one by one to demonstrate that the arguments for keeping the article are based in policy while the arguments for deleting the article are not.
GNG: The general notability guideline states that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Presumed to be [notable]" implies that when the specified coverage has been shown to exist, the burden of proof is on those advocating deletion - they must provide solid arguments for why the topic still is not notable. In this AfD, Keep !voters cited the following sources in their !votes, replies, and comments: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Delete !voters questioned the applicability of the 2nd, 3rd, 13th (implicitly), and 16th (implicitly) sources in that list. Thus the following 14 sources presented by Keep !voters went unchallenged by delete !voters: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Looking at just a few of these sources:
[30], [31]: content from Public Radio International's "The World" program, also republished in The Week. PRI provides content for over 850 public radio stations. This combined with their "about" page makes me highly confident in their editorial process. The coverage is significant (the entire article); clearly, PRI is independent of the subject. All three criteria are met.
[32]: In-depth feature in Al Jazeera, a reliable source (per WP:RSP) that is independent of the subject. Coverage is significant (the entire article, again). All three criteria are met.
[33]: Full-length article, in the Los Angeles Times, a reliable source (per WP:RSP) that is independent of the subject. All three criteria are met.
[34]: Full-length article in The Guardian, a reliable source (per WP:RSP) that is independent of the subject. All three criteria are met.
...and so on and so forth.
Clearly the topic passes the GNG. The Delete rationales citing GNG do not stand up under examination.
Original research: the main thrust of the delete arguments here is that editors of the article cobbled together coverage of prostitution in individual castes without there being any existing discussion of the overarching phenomenon of caste-based prostitution as a whole. Again, the sources provided by the Keep !voters prove this to be unfounded. Three academic publications (two studies and a master's thesis) were cited in the deletion discussion, and all of them focus specifically on the link between caste and prostitution: [35], [36], [37]. In a few cases, even some of the articles discussing the issue in individual castes allude to the wider problem:
PRI "The World":
Chauhan belongs to the Bacchara caste, a community where women are the primary breadwinners in their families — many work as prostitutes. It’s what Chauhan's mother and grandmother did before her and what she was forced to do when her marriage ended. The caste system is a framework of social hierarchy in India that has existed for centuries. People are born into a caste and cannot change which one they belong to, and even though caste-based discrimination is illegal, it continues to impact how people live here. Caste determines people’s social standing, the opportunities available to them and their interactions with others in different social classes. [...] Monalika Tiwari, a social worker with the organization Jan Sahas, which strives to empower socially excluded communities (with a special focus on women and girls forced into caste-based prostitution), says young girls are often forced into sex work in order to support their families. She says men in the community are generally not expected to work, whereas at least one girl in most families will be forced to become a prostitute instead of getting married.
The Guardian:
India officially abolished caste discrimination almost 70 years ago. But millennia of tradition is not easily erased. For most Indians, caste still has a defining influence on who they marry and what they eat. It also traps millions in abusive work. The exploited and trafficked children of Sagar Gram, and dozens of other villages across India’s hinterland, are one of its most disturbing manifestations. “It is caste and gender slavery,” says Ashif Shaikh of Jan Sahas, an advocacy group that works with members of India’s lowest castes, communities that used to be called “untouchables”. “We estimate there are 100,000 women and girls in this situation. But there are likely more we haven’t identified. It’s an invisible issue.”
WP:NOPAGE: this was cited by numerous delete !voters. However, such Vague waves at policy acronyms have no value without accompanying explanations. WP:NOPAGE specifies three criteria for consideration. The third is clearly not applicable in this case. No delete !voter made a clear argument based on the first or second criteria. Furthermore, WP:NOPAGE is about splitting vs merging, not about outright deletion, and most of the !votes citing NOPAGE were for deletion, not merging.
POV fork: Quite simply, delete !voters did not provide meaningful evidence that the article is a POV fork. I'm not sure there's too much to say here that wasn't already said in the AfD.