| Revision as of 06:59, 2 May 2006 editWickethewok (talk | contribs)16,438 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:21, 2 May 2006 edit undoTheMadTim (talk | contribs)243 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *'''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) | |||
Revision as of 11:21, 2 May 2006
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)
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)I'm withdrawing my vote since the user has expressed a desire to meet the NPOV guidelines. Garrett 05:45, 2 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 - 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)