| Revision as of 06:59, 2 May 2006 editWickethewok (talk | contribs)16,438 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:24, 6 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was '''Delete'''. ] 05:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| '''Delete''' - seems inherently POV. Most of the content looks like original research as well. ] 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | '''Delete''' - seems inherently POV. Most of the content looks like original research as well. ] 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom unless it's brought to NPOV and ''seriously'' sourced. This also might not be a useful stand-alone article, as opposed to merging it into a general Indian Economics/Business article. ] 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom unless it's brought to NPOV and ''seriously'' sourced. This also might not be a useful stand-alone article, as opposed to merging it into a general Indian Economics/Business article. ] 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. A soapbox-like rail against India, highly unlikely to become a legit article. ]]] 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. A soapbox-like rail against India, highly unlikely to become a legit article. ]]] 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep for now''' article has been in existance less than 24 hours. Initial author has made edits to attempt to improve. It is too early to judge that deletion is needed. I think sourcing is the most important change. See also ] ] 21:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep for now''' article has been in existance less than 24 hours. Initial author has made edits to attempt to improve. It is too early to judge that deletion is needed. I think sourcing is the most important change. See also ] ] 21:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Comment''' - Truth be told, I don't see the relevance of how long the article has existed, and I am likewise curious as to what provoked waving the WP:BITE flag. It is a completely defensible position to not find this subject worth a stand-alone article, no matter how well-written or how long it's been around. ] 14:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | * |
||
| ::'''Response''' The nomination claim wasn't that the subject isn't worth a stand alone article (ie, non-notable or non-encyclopediac) - it was that it is inherently POV and mostly OR - a very different pair of statements. | |||
| ::As to the short duration bit, the first three sentences are a rough syllogism. Short duration + being improved = too soon to judge. | |||
| ::WP:BITE is relevant because the original author is a newbie, and this nomination fails to do any of these: "Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is about before defining what he/she is doing as 'wrong' or 'substandard'."; "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; "Don't slam the newcomer; remember, this is a place where anyone can edit and, in a very real sense, it is therefore each person's responsibility to edit, not to criticize or supervise others."; and "Assume good faith on the part of the newcomer. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!" (All of these are quotes from WP:BITE). ] 18:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Response''' - Indeed, but just because someone is new does not change the fact the premise of the article is not inherently POV. My issue is that the article does not really have a encyclopedic basis. ] 19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Response''' -- Alright, I'm still curious. In which way does the nomination ''fail'' to treat the newcomer kindly, ''not'' assume good faith or ''slam'' the newcomer? I rather hope you're not one of those that presume WP:BITE requires us never, ever to do or say anything that any newcomer might conceivably be construed not to like. There is nothing in WP:BITE requiring us to ignore WP:NOR or WP:NPOV so long as an article is written by a newbie, and it does newcomers (and, as to that, Misplaced Pages) a huge disservice to try. ] 02:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | *'''Delete'''. Lines like "''India is a fairly corrupt country.''" and "''sufficiently weakened British might and arrogance''" don't make me very hopeful of this becoming an NPOV article any time soon. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC) -- restoring vote, the article hasn't changed since the Afd listing. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Delete'''. Something might be done on this in the medium-term future, but this article looks impossible to clean up and, believe me, impossible to source. ] 23:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Strong Delete'''. Something might be done on this in the medium-term future, but this article looks impossible to clean up and, believe me, impossible to source. ] 23:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' The article was nominated for deletion approximately 13 hours after it was first created. The guy tried to get consensus for the article on the talk page and was ignored by three of the people now voting to delete it. Deletion for the sake of deletion. Not one person has even attempted to improve this article before nominating or supporting its deletion. --] 03:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' The article was nominated for deletion approximately 13 hours after it was first created. The guy tried to get consensus for the article on the talk page and was ignored by three of the people now voting to delete it. Deletion for the sake of deletion. Not one person has even attempted to improve this article before nominating or supporting its deletion. --] 03:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Response''' - I don't think an article on corruption that may or may not exist is the best approach to developing an encyclopedic article. I'm fine if its recreated with completely different content and a different title. But thats called a deletion. ] 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | **'''Response''' - I don't think an article on corruption that may or may not exist is the best approach to developing an encyclopedic article. I'm fine if its recreated with completely different content and a different title. But thats called a deletion. ] 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ***'''Response''' No, that would be called editing an article. If you think the title could be better, why not discuss it on the talk page? If you think the content could be better, why not discuss it on the talk page? You have nominated this for deletion without even attempting to discuss it on the talk page first. --] 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****'''Response''' Because the content is impossible to fix, as it now stands. In certain circumstances, we need to start from scratch. This is an enormous field of study, and there is a vast amount of published research, none of which is cited, and much of which uses a completely different structure from the OR approach in this article. Thus, an ideal deletion candidate. ] 14:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 05:24, 6 February 2023
- 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 of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Corruption in India
Delete - seems inherently POV. Most of the content looks like original research as well. Wickethewok 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom unless it's brought to NPOV and seriously sourced. This also might not be a useful stand-alone article, as opposed to merging it into a general Indian Economics/Business article. RGTraynor 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A soapbox-like rail against India, highly unlikely to become a legit article. Grandmasterka 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for now article has been in existance less than 24 hours. Initial author has made edits to attempt to improve. It is too early to judge that deletion is needed. I think sourcing is the most important change. See also WP:BITE GRBerry 21:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Truth be told, I don't see the relevance of how long the article has existed, and I am likewise curious as to what provoked waving the WP:BITE flag. It is a completely defensible position to not find this subject worth a stand-alone article, no matter how well-written or how long it's been around. RGTraynor 14:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Response The nomination claim wasn't that the subject isn't worth a stand alone article (ie, non-notable or non-encyclopediac) - it was that it is inherently POV and mostly OR - a very different pair of statements.
- As to the short duration bit, the first three sentences are a rough syllogism. Short duration + being improved = too soon to judge.
- WP:BITE is relevant because the original author is a newbie, and this nomination fails to do any of these: "Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is about before defining what he/she is doing as 'wrong' or 'substandard'."; "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; "Don't slam the newcomer; remember, this is a place where anyone can edit and, in a very real sense, it is therefore each person's responsibility to edit, not to criticize or supervise others."; and "Assume good faith on the part of the newcomer. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!" (All of these are quotes from WP:BITE). GRBerry 18:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Response - Indeed, but just because someone is new does not change the fact the premise of the article is not inherently POV. My issue is that the article does not really have a encyclopedic basis. Wickethewok 19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Response -- Alright, I'm still curious. In which way does the nomination fail to treat the newcomer kindly, not assume good faith or slam the newcomer? I rather hope you're not one of those that presume WP:BITE requires us never, ever to do or say anything that any newcomer might conceivably be construed not to like. There is nothing in WP:BITE requiring us to ignore WP:NOR or WP:NPOV so long as an article is written by a newbie, and it does newcomers (and, as to that, Misplaced Pages) a huge disservice to try. RGTraynor 02:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Lines like "India is a fairly corrupt country." and "sufficiently weakened British might and arrogance" don't make me very hopeful of this becoming an NPOV article any time soon. Garrett 23:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC) -- restoring vote, the article hasn't changed since the Afd listing. Garrett 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Something might be done on this in the medium-term future, but this article looks impossible to clean up and, believe me, impossible to source. Hornplease 23:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article was nominated for deletion approximately 13 hours after it was first created. The guy tried to get consensus for the article on the talk page and was ignored by three of the people now voting to delete it. Deletion for the sake of deletion. Not one person has even attempted to improve this article before nominating or supporting its deletion. --TheMadTim 03:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Response - I don't think an article on corruption that may or may not exist is the best approach to developing an encyclopedic article. I'm fine if its recreated with completely different content and a different title. But thats called a deletion. Wickethewok 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Response No, that would be called editing an article. If you think the title could be better, why not discuss it on the talk page? If you think the content could be better, why not discuss it on the talk page? You have nominated this for deletion without even attempting to discuss it on the talk page first. --TheMadTim 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Response Because the content is impossible to fix, as it now stands. In certain circumstances, we need to start from scratch. This is an enormous field of study, and there is a vast amount of published research, none of which is cited, and much of which uses a completely different structure from the OR approach in this article. Thus, an ideal deletion candidate. Hornplease 14:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Response No, that would be called editing an article. If you think the title could be better, why not discuss it on the talk page? If you think the content could be better, why not discuss it on the talk page? You have nominated this for deletion without even attempting to discuss it on the talk page first. --TheMadTim 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Response - I don't think an article on corruption that may or may not exist is the best approach to developing an encyclopedic article. I'm fine if its recreated with completely different content and a different title. But thats called a deletion. Wickethewok 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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.