Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madakkavil: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Wickethewok (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
***'''Reply to comment''' - I do understand the issue. I have not asked for any special treatment. You said there are no outside references. Please go to the page called 'list of nair tharavadus'. That has a list of tharavadus like the one I mentioned on the page. Most of them have no 'outside references'. Probably we need to have a reference that people in North America understand. I guess that would satisfy all queries.{{unsigned|220.227.162.153}} |
***'''Reply to comment''' - I do understand the issue. I have not asked for any special treatment. You said there are no outside references. Please go to the page called 'list of nair tharavadus'. That has a list of tharavadus like the one I mentioned on the page. Most of them have no 'outside references'. Probably we need to have a reference that people in North America understand. I guess that would satisfy all queries.{{unsigned|220.227.162.153}} |
||
**** '''Reply to reply''' - I'd like to point out that the list you are talking about features almost exclusively red links. I'd also like to point out that several of the few that actually have articles are up for deletion as well. You really can't add things to Wikipedia without sources - if you do, it is indistinguishable from "original research", which is specifically not allowed on Wikipedia. Citing examples of articles that don't follow this policy is not a valid argument for keeping this article. [[User:Wickethewok|Wickethewok]] 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
**** '''Reply to reply''' - I'd like to point out that the list you are talking about features almost exclusively red links. I'd also like to point out that several of the few that actually have articles are up for deletion as well. You really can't add things to Wikipedia without sources - if you do, it is indistinguishable from "original research", which is specifically not allowed on Wikipedia. Citing examples of articles that don't follow this policy is not a valid argument for keeping this article. [[User:Wickethewok|Wickethewok]] 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
*****''' |
|||
I really cannot understand your sustained opposition to this article. Anyway, I maintain that this is not a hoax and worth an article on this site. I knew that the internet originated in the US but did not understand the extend to which American ideas and restricted world view influences it even today (the world much bigger than US & western europe my friend).This will be my last comment on this issue. Do whatever you want with this article. Maybe we in the rest of the world need our own 'wikipedia' (it will represent most of the world population!) |
|||
Revision as of 16:26, 13 April 2006
Delete - this term has 5 results on Google. Hoax...? Wickethewok 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- do not delete - just because a term does not have enough results on google does not mean that it is a hoax. if you read the article you realise it is from the state of kerala in India. there are a lot of terms, places and historical events in India that are not on google. The reason being that internet is not easily accessible in most parts of the country.
This article is open to debate but definitely not a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak2408 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - how do we know this is not a hoax? you have not provided any outside sources at all. Wickethewok 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I have to agree with you about Google: It's not all that reliable. But when Google hits are that low... Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You'd have to prove how an Indian family has relevance to the general public. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE On wikipedia I have read thousands of pages that are of no relevance to anybody outside the US. maybe not even to all people in the US. Do I then assume that Wikipedia and such sites are only meant for US and the western world?
India is a country of more than a billion people. 95 percent of these have no access at all to the internet. Which means that there are hundreds and thousands of communities that have no representation. But is that the way it should be? I thought the internet is an open, democratic forum ensuring equality for all irrespective of their geographical location. Why I wonder people would want a harmless page like this deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - you really don't seem to undersand the issue here... The point is, that you created an article without any references or outside sources of any kind. WP is for articles of all kinds. However, just because a subject is from outside the US, does not mean it gets special treatment. As I'm sure you agree, a geographical bias would harmful to Wikipedia. Wickethewok 07:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to comment - I do understand the issue. I have not asked for any special treatment. You said there are no outside references. Please go to the page called 'list of nair tharavadus'. That has a list of tharavadus like the one I mentioned on the page. Most of them have no 'outside references'. Probably we need to have a reference that people in North America understand. I guess that would satisfy all queries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 (talk • contribs)
- Reply to reply - I'd like to point out that the list you are talking about features almost exclusively red links. I'd also like to point out that several of the few that actually have articles are up for deletion as well. You really can't add things to Wikipedia without sources - if you do, it is indistinguishable from "original research", which is specifically not allowed on Wikipedia. Citing examples of articles that don't follow this policy is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Wickethewok 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to reply - I'd like to point out that the list you are talking about features almost exclusively red links. I'd also like to point out that several of the few that actually have articles are up for deletion as well. You really can't add things to Wikipedia without sources - if you do, it is indistinguishable from "original research", which is specifically not allowed on Wikipedia. Citing examples of articles that don't follow this policy is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Wickethewok 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to comment - I do understand the issue. I have not asked for any special treatment. You said there are no outside references. Please go to the page called 'list of nair tharavadus'. That has a list of tharavadus like the one I mentioned on the page. Most of them have no 'outside references'. Probably we need to have a reference that people in North America understand. I guess that would satisfy all queries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - you really don't seem to undersand the issue here... The point is, that you created an article without any references or outside sources of any kind. WP is for articles of all kinds. However, just because a subject is from outside the US, does not mean it gets special treatment. As I'm sure you agree, a geographical bias would harmful to Wikipedia. Wickethewok 07:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I really cannot understand your sustained opposition to this article. Anyway, I maintain that this is not a hoax and worth an article on this site. I knew that the internet originated in the US but did not understand the extend to which American ideas and restricted world view influences it even today (the world much bigger than US & western europe my friend).This will be my last comment on this issue. Do whatever you want with this article. Maybe we in the rest of the world need our own 'wikipedia' (it will represent most of the world population!)