Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

March 13[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • 02:56, Mar 13, 2005 Rich Farmbrough deleted Zedd's Cat (Speedy patent nonsense content was: '{{speedy}}{{subst:vfd}}Zedd's cat, Cat.')

Zedd's Cat[edit]

Seems like a new user's test тəті

  • It should qualify as a speedy delete, no need to waste our time going through VFD for this. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious speedy. -R. fiend 02:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, empty article. Megan1967 02:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Jenkins[edit]

Possible hoax. "Ryan P. Jenkins" returned 4 results on Google, 4,000 on "Ryan Jenkins" but none at all about his alleged imprisonment. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • "He should be considered lazy and mentally dangerous"... Yeah, I'd say hoax. Delete. Wakuseino 04:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted, at very least an uninformative unverifiable POV stublet non-article; likely a prank or hoax. Other contribution by this isp today was clear vandalism, since deleted ("The Cunt") -- Infrogmation 05:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 03:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Anabolic frolic[edit]

Delete. Vanity page. --Worldbound 01:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 11:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks notable enough from google, and I heard someone say he sucks just today. --SPUI (talk) 11:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 14,800 google hits [3], 2 or more "Happy2bHardcore" albums on amazon [4], and if people say he sucks, he must be famous. Kappa 13:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Third-party verifiable evidence is reason to keep - David Gerard 13:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Has an allmusic.com entry, but it's only three sentences long. Article needs cleanup, as I've read it and still have no idea who this guy is. Gamaliel 17:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, I plan on giving this page a major overhaul in the future. He's a very notable DJ. :edit: Updated the article. Plan to add picture later. Coolgamer 19:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:00, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jews in Tunisia[edit]

At first glance it looks like a disambig page. But all it has is a link to Islam and Judaism and two links to articles of groups of Jewish people. Neither of those articles mention Tunisia. This article doesn't make a lot of sense as it's currently written. Keep as currently rewritten. DaveTheRed 08:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 11:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can only barely imagine an encyclopaedic article of this title, and can't see how to get there from here - David Gerard 13:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand — It appears to be part of a series of articles linked from Jews by country, many of which are substantial pages. So to me it just looks like a stub at the moment. — RJH 17:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It makes no sense to create articles about Jews in different countries and then redirect users to Judaism and Islam as if Islam is synonymous with Arab countries. --Prisk 22:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Valid and important historical article subject. --Gene_poole 01:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - compare Jews in Algeria. Was well short of the stub bar, admittedly, but I've expanded it to a stub. - Mustafaa 08:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with David, delete. Radiant! 09:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn jewcruft. ComCat 09:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 03:33, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stubby, but has perfectly good article potential. I can't imagine why anyone would doubt the potential to write an article on almost any ethnic group with a significant history in a given country. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Eliezer 06:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Mrfixter 12:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has potential for expansion. --Decius 09:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Jmabel said. Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've expanded it a little, and given a number of links which indicate significantly greater expansion is possible and worthwhile. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Also agree with Jmabel. SlimVirgin 22:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's coming out good SF2K1 23:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Kleinman[edit]

of no apparent note. a literary agent who some blog thinks might become rich if he succeeds in getting a particular book they like published. dead-end page both in & out. deleted once by User:Thue, not sure if it's exactly the content same though. update: the book in question recently failed vfd [7]. Michael Ward 15:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It is roughly the same content: some guys writing an article about the guy who decides whether they get published. Almost all content is about how great a decision it would be to sign them. Speedy delete again. Thue | talk 21:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied as recreation - David Gerard 01:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to False memory. —Korath (Talk) 04:08, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Imaginary memories[edit]

  • Originally I thought this article was simply very badly written and in drastic need of cleanup. There is, however, confabulation and source amnesia, which appear to describe this sort of condition far better. Some of the information here might be salvaged and merged and this page could be a redirect. I don't know whether it's an appropriate redirect page though (would someone really search for 'imaginary memories' when after one of the others?) so maybe delete. I'm not sure, but I think some action is needed. Treborbassett 17:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not sure if there's anything useful to merge, but then redirect probably to False memory. Kappa 18:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's probably better. Treborbassett 18:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree: redirect to false memory. -Sean Curtin 19:08, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - David Gerard 01:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Could possibly be rewritten, but a new article title would probably be needed. As it is, hopelessly incoherent. Is there a Soft Redirect option whereby you can convert an article to a "click here to continue" status? Haikupoet 02:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why wouldn't a hard redirect work? I have the feeling that anything that says "X is a Y, click here to continue" would be deletable as an 'unexpandable article'". Kappa 09:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to false memory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to false memory. Psychonaut 10:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. The article was mistakenly VFD-tagged as fictional. Mgm|(talk) 08:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Tart 'n' Tinys[edit]

This is about a kind of sweet mentioned in a children's book. If its contents belong anywhere (which I doubt), they belong in the article on the book. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, sorry. Do we have to go through the whole VfD farce, or would a friendly admin cut this short? (I have no idea what NERDS are either — but don't worry, I don't need to know. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • As it happens, we have an article for NERDS, too. :) —Korath (Talk) 19:35, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC) (keep)
  • Keep (just adding another vote to make the decision for the friendly admin easier) Rl 21:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 01:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE copyvio and REDIRECT to Low-cost carrier. Mgm|(talk) 08:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Cheap flights[edit]

First, its a complete copy vio of this site: http://www.bigadvicecenter.com/travel/discount-flights.html and second, this is hardly encylopedic matarial. --Sarvagna 19:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree. -- Infrogmation 20:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe tag such articles as copyvio next time? We have a separate track for them at WP:CP. Rl 21:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I just tagged it as copyvio for you. Zzyzx11 22:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think the subject of cheap flights is encylopedic. Zzyzx11 22:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Low-cost carrier. Cheap flights are a subject of interest IMHO - here in the UK they have fundamentally changed travel habits and how people treat their vacation time (weekend trips to much of Europe being cheaper than going somewhere in the UK), and the UK's relations with continental Europe. Qwghlm 23:25, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Low-cost carrier. Thanks for pointing that out, Qwghlm. I do imagine someone entering "cheap flights" in the search engine. Zzyzx11 03:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the copyvio, and redirect to Low-cost carrier. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic, promo. Megan1967 03:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the copyvio and put a redirect in it's place. Mgm|(talk) 08:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. —Korath (Talk) 04:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Alleged planned Venezuelan coup in 2004[edit]

Article is nothing more than a combination of original research and poor sourcing. Half of the sources are in Spanish and therefore it is impossible for many Wikipedians to verify the contents of them, and the others are of dubious credibility. This and the fact that the article is attempting to argue a point, namely that forces are at work in Venezuela to hatch a coup against Chavez, even when none of the sources explicitly state this leads me to conclude that this article is nothing more than original research. Add onto this that the article is out of date. Deletion suggested. TDC 19:40, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV, non-encyclopedic, conspiracy theory. Binadot 22:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was an important event in Venezuelan-Colombian relations and internal Venezuelan politics. Whether it was a plot to overthrow the government, or a government ploy to persecute opposition members, or something in between, it was important. The article as it stands might have POV or sourcing issues, but that's not a reason to delete it. DanKeshet 22:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC) (note: this comment was edited since TDC made his reply. --dk)
Perhaps relevant sections might be reincorporated into the article as part of Venezuela's relations with its neighbors. TDC 22:29, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
We just moved it out of the Hugo Chavez article because the incident was overrepresented in that article. DanKeshet 22:47, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Read the header again, too much poorly sourced original research. TDC 23:03, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the article good right now, but original research? This seems like a perfectly standard account of what was in all the Venezuelan and world newspapers. If you want the other side of the story, check out Roberto Alonso's pictures of his ranch which he says was damaged in the raid of his employees. DanKeshet 23:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 01:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This was an alleged coup. Surely there is some Venezuelan article this can be merged to? Megan1967 03:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the whole point was that this page was split from the Hugo Chavez article. As for this bizarre idea that sources not written in English make the article original research, an article about South America that probes events in some depth is obviously going to use sources in Spanish. Of course not all readers will be able to verify them, but that doesn't mean that no one can, which is a very different thing. The vast vast majority of readers of any article don't check up on the sources and don't need to, as long as someone does it there isn't a problem. And anyway, if sources have to be written in the same language as the article in order to be valid I'd be interested to know how you think the Lingala or Inuktitut or Walloon editions of our noble project are ever going to produce comprehensive encyclopedias! — Trilobite (Talk) 04:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Half of the sources are in Spanish and therefore it is impossible for many Wikipedians to verify the contents of them" should never be an excuse for rejecting something. Especially not when the language is as easy to decipher as Spanish. This encyclopedia would be way poorer if only English-language sources were used. - Mustafaa 07:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename and Cleanup to make the article more factual and less speculatory. Radiant! 09:12, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup, this is an important and complex incident (alleged or not) which should definitely be included, though it's equally true that the narrative and sourcing should be improved (trying to not misrepresent the multiples sides of the issue, hopefully). Juancarlos2004 18:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The objection that the sources for an article on Venezuela are largely in Spanish is beneath contempt. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Rename Roberto Alonso affair, 2004?) Hajor 14:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup. I think it is a valid issue to have, since it is a current event that keeps on popping up in the American Press. Hugo Chavez has had coup attempts against him before, so if people agree to it, we could have a page just talking about the various attempts on Chavez. Zscout370 21:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 04:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Mohammad Bahrami[edit]

Vanity. Non notable. Inter\Echo 19:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:27, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Lunar Park[edit]

A clear example of advertising. If it should be mentioned it should be a single line on the author's page, not a seperate article. JesseW 20:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge or keep forthcoming novels by notable Brett Easton Ellis. It's not balanced, but it sources the quotes. Kappa 20:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. If you remove the fluff, it basically says "Ellis wrote a new book and his publisher says it's good". Well, duh. I wouldn't object if someone felt compelled to safe whatever valuable information they can gather for the author's article. Let them come back and create an article when there's some meat to this bone. Rl 20:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suggest that we rewrite it with previews from other sources and mark it as a stub. Zzyzx11 22:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove quotes, keep as stub until the thing comes out - David Gerard 01:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I prefer to consider not-yet-published works on a case-by-case basis. This time it's by an extremely notable author and should be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedic topic, but this is hype. Of course his publisher says it's going to be great. And says nothing about what it is, or if they did, it's not quoted here. Reduce to stub, then add material other than Knopf hype, if we can find any. Anyway, if deleted the article will certainly be back once it's published. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam is still spam, no matter how notable the source. Edeans 03:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Golf (Videopac game)[edit]

Image, no article. Wikipedia articles are not collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. Unexpanded since August 2004. -- Cyrius| 20:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I expanded it slightly Kappa 20:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Heh, it's got some text now. Thanks Cyrius for pointing it out, and Kappa for fixing it (sort of). Ah, nostalgia. Rl 20:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand as soon as possible. Zzyzx11 21:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 01:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand now that it's been brought to light. - Lucky 6.9 07:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep published game Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable gamecruft. ComCat 09:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable Jasoncart 15:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's still not a very good article, but at least it has one now. Formally withdrawing nomination. -- Cyrius| 00:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Karkarthar[edit]

Incomprehensible. RickK 21:32, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd like to think that there's some actual information hidden within this article, but I can't make heads or tails of it. I'm going to vote delete abstain for now, but I'll reconsider if a major cleanup can make this article readable. Carbonite | Talk 21:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject looks real, and so do some of the editors involved. If it was about a topic I had some knowledge of, I'd definitely prefer such a bad article over having to start from a blank page. It seems to be a better start than most stubs I've seen. My main concern is that the article might be worse than just bad: wrong. And that would be bad indeed. Anyhow, the article only had one day to live, I say let's give it a chance. Rl 22:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. I need to see some cleanup before I can give a delete or keep vote. Zzyzx11 22:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The article is in a sorry state, but this is no reason for deletion. Martg76 23:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be seriously overhauled. Currently the article seems to be gibberish and I can't make anything of it. There aren't many Google hits for the term Karkarthar (56 hits) and most seem to be on Indian matrimonial or "find-a-bride" services. I get the impression this may be something real, but if no one is capable of turning into something remotely comprehensible there's no reason to have it sitting around confusing people. Arkyan 00:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to keep based on the rewrite. Arkyan 16:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Horribly written - David Gerard 01:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, makes a reasonable amount of sense to me. If I was interested in Karkarthars I'd much rather have this than nothing. Kappa 01:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly notable Indian ethnic group. VfD is not cleanup: please do not try to use it as such. GeorgeStepanek\talk 03:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This could have been speedy deleted under the criterion of "No meaningful content or history", but I brought it here first hoping somebody can make heads or tails out of it. The article as it stands makes no sense. RickK 05:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • No meaningful content? That's quite a strict criterion. "Mother tongue is Tamil with unique Mayavaram accent and dialect." ... "Karkarthar mostly live in Southern part of India, Tamilnadu in districts of " <list of districts> ... sure sounds like meaningful content to me. Surely you're not proposing to delete articles on the basis of the their editor's fluency with English? GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed I am, if the article is unreadable. We delete articles written in other languages besides English, why not delete articles written in English which no one can read? RickK 06:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
          • It seems that other people can get at least some meaningful information from this article. Why can't you? Or rather, why don't you bother trying? It's obvious that the editors are trying hard to write a meaningful article, but are having great difficulties doing so. We need to give more help to them, not cast scorn on their efforts. This is where systemic bias comes from. These people have the knowledge we need to broaden our coverage. Why make it even harder for them to do so? GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Because crap like this reflects badly on the encyclopedia. I can just see the articles and the blogs pointing to this stuff and laughing gleefully about just how awful Wikipedia is. RickK 06:38, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't want to see that happen either. But that's what Cleanup is for. VfD is not Cleanup. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain since this is such a mess. If the facts are correct and it was made into something a bit more comprehensible, I'd certainly support a "keep." For now, I simply don't know what I'm voting on. - Lucky 6.9 07:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The topic is certainly encyclopedic, and the content looks salvageable. All we need is one person who knows something about Tamil Nadu, and the chances of that are good. - Mustafaa 07:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If memory serves me correctly the articles creator emailed me and asked me to help clean it up. I don't know anything about the subject myself so can't help that much content-wise, but I'll try to give them some help with basic Wikipedia editing so they can clean it up themselves. Keep. Mgm|(talk) 09:03, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete current content and list on requested articles. Radiant! 09:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's going backwards. This is probably the best English-language resource available. Kappa 10:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Modified article. I hope that those who didn't know what they were voting upon will find the article legible now. Please note the requests for a neutrality check and a fact check. Most of the references that I could find appear to be hopelessly biased. According to sources the Karkarthar are either the best people ever with claims to notability coming out of their ears, or simply one subdivision out of many who are a bunch of snobs thinking themselves superior to everyone else just as the other subdivisions all do. Note that the easiest reference to find, which was supplied by the original author, is an association that promotes the group. Uncle G 14:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    • Great rewrite, Uncle. I change my vote to Keep. RickK 22:51, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I second that. Magnificent save. Strong keep. - Lucky 6.9 03:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear keep as rewritten. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:29, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.