Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ramitmahajan (talk | contribs) at 05:04, 11 January 2007 (→Ongoing deletion debates: rm closed afd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Points of interest related to India on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to India. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|India|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to India. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Purge page cache | watch |
Purge page cache |
Automatic delete candidates
- (PROD-tagged) pages, culled from Category:Proposed deletion
Dated: January 10, 2006
Dated: January 9, 2006
Dated: January 8, 2006
Dated: January 7, 2006
Dated: January 6, 2006
Dated: January 5, 2006
Dated: January 4, 2006
Ongoing deletion debates
- 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. Cbrown1023 01:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally nominated for speedy but this was declined upon him being a 'saint'. In my opinion I don't even think he is a saint. Google has very few hits. The article is also very poorly written with little use to wikipedia and would need a very large rewrite in order to be acceptable RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or lets have banter 16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - It's claimed that he's a Hindu saint. I don't know enough about Hinduism to evaluate the claim, but I can't rule it out. GSearch on his alternative title Bhagwaanji gives more results. Article badly needs rewrite, though. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep It is, though just barely, adequately sourced--and Google may be good for many things, but Saints are not among them. DGG 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a saint, not sure what the point of the article is. Slac speak up! 04:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a stub that needs a good clean by someone who knows the subject area, but sourced and referenced. Nuttah68 13:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep — Add an expert tag on it, it's sourced and just needs to be fixed up. If it's found on a rewrite hes not a saint of anything, then I'll change my vote on the next one, but until then, appears to just barely pass WP:BIO as it stands. Wizardman 17:28, 15 January 2007 (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.
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing here that makes this Indian magazine notable. It fails WP:CORP and should be deleted. Diez2 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there is no assertion of notability whatsoever. Article creators should be aware that it's their resposibility to establish noteworthiness when creating an article. Quadzilla99 04:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 06:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Eastmain 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
- Delete. ~50 google hits for the domain name timesjlt.com. Requires login to access articles/forum/etc. John Vandenberg 09:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. MER-C 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, 'JLT magazine' gets 270 ghits, 'Just like that magazine' gets 1! SkierRMH 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -- lucasbfr talk 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've added the info about mag to Times Group. utcursch | talk 13:19, 11 January 2007 (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.
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pallikunnu gundas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
I don't know whether the subject of the article is merely very unimportant or complete nonsense. There is nothing like any "official cricket team of KSCA"; there may or may not be a "Kerala State Cricket Cup" but even if there is, it is highly unimportant. There certainly is nobody who went on to play international cricket. Kerala has produced only two international cricketers ([1] & [2]) and neither was from anywhere near Kannur Tintin (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's nothing verifiable here, and the absence of Google hits for Pallikunnu +cricket points to a joke/hoax by User:Nobaseballnolife. --Mereda 09:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Hoax or not, we need good sources. Edison 22:52, 8 January 2007 (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.
- 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 and Merge into the section "Muslims in Modern India" in the article Islam in India. There's really nothing wrong with the article, but:
- A good part of the article is redundant with Muslims in Parliament of India. Generally, there should not be identical lists in two places, especially when the list is subject to change. This is a maintenance issue.
- Once that list is removed, the article is short. Islam in India#Muslims in Modern India is tagged as needing expansion, so it makes sense to expand it by merging what is left of the article into that section.
This doesn't mean that, in future, if editors want to add more material into Islam in India#Muslims in Modern India than will comfortably fit, a new article could not be created. Perhaps that article should be named "Muslims in modern India" rather than "State of Muslims in India". Herostratus 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- State of Muslims in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
BAsed on Single source and essentially an attempt to create a POV fork of Islam in India. Allegations of lack of Muslim representation are largely partisan (and made by leftist - based partisan media hype, bearing in mind that president of India is a Muslim). Data from Sachar report may be incorporated into Islam in India and this article deleted please. Rumpelstiltskin223 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, Valid encylopedia article with demographic details about a community of a country. Similar articles exist for african americans in US. Non, partisan sources like indian express are mentioned. Its also an Indian related stub. Pure Vandalism --Shacs 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Such bullying tactics will not work with me. I never said that the information be removed. Merely that it be placed in the appropriate article. muslims in India cannot be compared to articles on ethnic groups like African Americans since Muslims are not an ethnicity but adherents of a religion. Rumpelstiltskin223 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Islam in India is a very long article and is related to religion in general. This piece relates to muslims in particular and their current position. --Linxengine 21:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The only way by which Muslims are defined is through Islam. Muslims are neither a race or creed. They are the adherents of Islam and thus any information on Muslims (particularly ones this little) can be merged with the Islam in India article.Rumpelstiltskin223 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a main article and can be refered in Islam in India. As mentioned above similar articles exsist for different racial, linguistic, political, and religious groups. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted or merged. It Presents the current socio-economic details of over 150 million people. Its hard to beleive that we are resisting them even a page in wikipedia. --Linxengine 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What religious group? Is there any article called State of Hindus in India??? Is there any article called State of Bahaii in Japan???State of Muslims in Kamchatka??? There is a Hinduism in India but also an Islam in India. The information in discussion is based on a single source and does not merit it's own article but in Islam in India.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is no article, it doesn't mean it should not. Contribute one if you like, but honour others work. --Linxengine 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a main article and can be refered in Islam in India. As mentioned above similar articles exsist for different racial, linguistic, political, and religious groups. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted or merged. It Presents the current socio-economic details of over 150 million people. Its hard to beleive that we are resisting them even a page in wikipedia. --Linxengine 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Islam in India. --Адам12901 Talk 21:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Race and religion are two different things. One can choose their religion, one cannot choose their race. This can easily be readded onto Islam in India, since its about two sentences of useful info. Muslim is not an ethnic group[, and a similar article Christians in Pakistan was deleted.Bakaman 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I read Timesofinda every day and also some others. Few day ago I had read that India PM said giving Muslims equal chances. Similarly President of India had said something similar about Muslims-In-Indian-Army few months ago because there are very less Muslim in Army. It was a long debate on it. It is a fact that Indian Muslims are much backward as compare to Hindus. One can find references from India's press. Similarly when I was in USA working on H1B visa then there was many Hindus on H1B visa (in Silicon Valley, CA) but Muslims of India was verrrry less. Hence I think a very good quality article can be created based on many references easily. I will try to contribute too on this one. Quick google seach gives me these references [3] sky-has-fallen-muslim-in-army-asked [4] Untouchability like apartheid, says PM, pushes Muslim equity --- ALM 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Guys, It is differnt topic and has nothing to do with Islam in India. Please see the differences. --- ALM 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not disagree, but why is that a valid argument for a separate article? Why not include all this data in Islam in India. I can equally argue that I should write a State of Hindus in India article and write about attack on Akshardham temple and Indian Parliament by Muslims and increasing Islamic terrorism and how it's affected Hindus. I can write about votebank politics in favor of Muslims and CPM,s support for radical Islamism etc. etc. I am sure that such an article would be AfD'ed in a second and scores of people rush in to vote "delete-delete". Rumpelstiltskin223 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: It depends on two things 1) Importance of topic and 2) amount of material available on it. If topic is not much important and if there is NOT much material available. Then a section in existing article is good. However, in this case the topic is very important because Muslims are lot in number and the issue is hot enough in press (see December 27th Report). Hence for me it is justified to have a seperate article on it. --- ALM 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Same thing with Hindus as well. here are some articles on the situation with the marginalization of Hindus in Bangladesh, for instance [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. If I created a separate article on State of Hindus in Bangladesh, every Muslim on wikipedia would yell "Hindu lies!Delete-delete". Rumpelstiltskin223 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to support State of Hindus in Bangladesh however above mentioned sources are not neutral. You are giving me Indian News paper to show Hindus status in Bangladesh. Those News papers are of other Hindu country hence might be biased. Unlike this I am giving you Hindu News papers of the same country to present situation of Muslim. Do you see the difference? --- ALM 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry I just found that some of your sources are neutral too. Hence I will support that article. --- ALM 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - There are no "Hindu newspapers". Please read about India before you make ignorant generalizations. India is a secular country, unlike other more backward countries in the area. The word "Hindu" in "The Hindu" does not mean it is a "Hindu" newspaper but "Hindu" in that context means India. In fact, "The Hindu" is a leftist biased newspaper that frequently makes hatred against Hindus in favor of radical leftist and Islamist groups (which explains their obsession with this subject).Regarding my argument above,I think you have misunderstood my position. My point of the above statement was that none of those articles cited is justification for a separate article on this problem but is a justification for including information in Hinduism in Bangladesh. To create a separate article is a POV fork. In the same vein, all this information about reports of Muslims is not enough for a separate article but inclusion into the Islam in India article where it belongs.Rumpelstiltskin223 02:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect to Islam in India. KazakhPol 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - consider WP:NPOV and consider that there is no State of Muslims in Israel article then why this ? Freedom skies| talk 19:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopediac--Sefringle 07:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above--Shyamsunde 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Good article. Reasons for deletion and Redirect given above are humourous. --Mastiboy 13:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content into an appropriate (or separate, if none exist) sect of Islam in India. ITAQALLAH 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Keep or Merge with islam in india. Various articles dealing with American demographics exist as well.RiseRobotRise 17:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- An unjustifiable comparison. There are no articles on the demographics of religions in America (other than the articles on the religions in USA themselves like Islam in the United States, no state of Muslims in the United States). There is already an Islam in India so this content can be put there. Rumpelstiltskin223 08:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as separate article as Islam in India is more suitable as a History related page and this article discusses the current scenario and this is one of the main topics being debated in India (Media, Parliament etc). Vjdchauhan 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
- Comment - That creates way too many POV forks and, given the tendency for Indian Islamic and Hindu Fundamentalist editors, as well as the comrades from the far left, to troll in these types of articles it is better to keep them all in one place to avoid further disruption of wikipedia (by now, I'm sure everybody is aware of the argumentative shenanigans of some South Asian editors on wikipedia). Rumpelstiltskin223 08:43, 15 January 2007 (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.
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no claim as to this village's notability. Citicat 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following related pages because it appears to be more info of only local interest about the same area:
- Kumbra Chonk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Citicat 18:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notable for pirate CD shops? POV-zone, non-notable village. Budgiekiller 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep absent extraordinary circumstances, assuming it's a real place with more than a handful of people. I believe there is ample precedent that inhabited places are noteworthy—we don't have AfD's and deletions based on "boring little town, nothing ever happens there." Article requires much cleanup but that's not a deletion criterion here. Newyorkbrad 19:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Obviously every inhabited place isn't worthy - an apartment building is a place, and so is the street I live on (sounds like a Sesame Street song), but they're not getting articles. Also, the term village needs to be defined here - A handful of tents in the jungle can be called a "village". I've tried to look up what exactly what this region is, without any real success, other that wikipedia mirrors. Anyway, assuming it's a meaningful enough place to deserve keeping, there needs to be something in the article that explains what it is (the population, for instance) I'd say merge it into the main article of Mohali, but I'm not sure there's anything worth merging. Citicat 02:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Articles about villages of any size are automatically kept, but these are only areas of a town that do not assert notability. -- Kicking222 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I found a reference which paints a different picture of the village. --Eastmain 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The reference is quite detailed and provides verifiable information and, per Newyorkbrad, real places with a reasonable number of people in are usually kept. Obvious cleanup needed. Trebor 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Villages of all shapes and sizes are included on Wikipedia, so long as they are verifiable. Silensor 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a real town. Towns, villages and cities are inherently notable. --Oakshade 00:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I wish that villages were not automatically notable for WP purposes, but they are. This is one of the decisions that we're stuck with whether we like it or not, and deleting on that basis is WP:POINT.DGG 03:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The recent revisions have addressed my original concerns, I no longer feel the article should be deleted, although cleanup is still needed. Howver, the associated article Kumbra Chonk still should be deleted or merged into the main article. Citicat 15:08, 11 January 2007 (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.