Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Classical Tamil

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. Please defer merge discussions to the article talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Computing Olympiad

nn group. Ghoe 09:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to International Olympiad in Informatics. NN on its own, but useful when merged. (|-- UlTiMuS 10:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Ultimus. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - To say that the competition is non-notable would be incorrect. Per this the competition had 6300 participants taking part. Merging this into International Olympiad in Informatics would be inappropriate as this competition is not part of the main event, but a competition held to select the team to take part in the international event. The competition is organised by CBSE. See Category:Olympiads in India. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - agreed. Kprateek88 05:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand: Why non-notable? There are enough precedents. See USA, China, Britain, C.Europe, or see USA, Britain (and others) in Maths, etc. --Shreevatsa 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Apart from what I said above (other examples include South African Computer Olympiad and HKOI), it should also be noted that there are literally tens of thousands of potential participants who might be interested in this article. Also, most of the material for this article is scattered in the ZIO and INOI and IOITC articles (strange that this one should get an AfD before those...), so it is perhaps a good idea to merge those articles into this one. Does Merge and keep sound good? --Shreevatsa 18:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Aksi.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Aksi. bbx 08:55, 4 September 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.

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. Punkmorten 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarahaat.com

nn website. Ghoe 10:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced ad about website with an Alexa ranking of 2,341,040. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Effectively advertising (& not very good). --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' fails WP:WEB - Blood red sandman 12:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. utcursch | talk 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails notability.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 16:03, 30 August 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.

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 and rename to Marriage websites as matrimony refers to the Catholic marriage on WP and this article does not appear to be restricted to one faith alone. Marriage is the wider term for the union of two people in secular and religious practices, so it appears to be more appropriate for this article. (aeropagitica) 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matrimonial sites

Very narrow towards two sites in India, and may also be WP:SPAM (Not 100% sure on that though). Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, too narrow. Daniel.Bryant 12:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete page has no encyclopedic merit. -- Fullstop 12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely POV and unencyclopedic. Sorry to say it, but I wouldn't know this type of site from a hole in the (Internet) ground :) --james^(talk) 12:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Keep and rewrite using sources cited by Uncle G. I shoudld learn to Google better. --james^(talk) 08:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

*Delete - per nom. Most of the article is OR ("Believed to be a more serious venue", "Leading matrimonials sites.."). Not encyclopedic. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Change to keep per great work by Uncle G. But needs rewrite. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Web sites that provide matrimonial services are huge in India. They are certainly widely advertised. (I see an advert for one practically every time that I look at an article on The Hindu.) That this article only talks about two such sites is a result of the fact that the article doesn't appear to be based firmly upon sources (although it does cite one). You'll find copious source matter on this subject in articles such as this article in The Tribune, this second article in The Tribune, this article in the New York Times, this article in the Deccan Herald, this MSN article, this article in Zee News, and this article in GaramChai. Keep and send to rewrite. Uncle G 15:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic, totally POV. -Shazbot85^Talk 16:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixing non-neutrality, when one has this many sources available, is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed. Uncle G 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and I think it would get spammy if left. Changed to Neutral given the rewrite & accept that possible future spam is not an issue Nigel ^(Talk) 12:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the good research and partial clean-up by Uncle G. Nom is now obsolete as to the spam issue, and while future spam is possible, that is not a reason for deletion. This is verifiable material from reliable sources. GRBerry 14:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Important article from India's perspective. Needs a re-write as some OR present, but keep-worthy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - rename to "Matrimonial Websites/Services." Rama's arrow 17:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a promising article that brings to light the importance of matrimonials sites to indian culture. It really does need broader representation across the board but it is in work and deserving to be kept. Professorgupta

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 discounting annons. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rajesh Chauhan (physician)

Clearly a vanity article. Has clear instances of self-edits and possible sock-puppet edits. Shushruth 03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The four publications referenced appear to be in minor local journals, largely case studies. The BMJ claims are actually unrefereed responses to the BMJ's online bulletin board, and the other 'papers' in high-quality journals appear to be similar. Espresso Addict 03:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Espresso Addict's thorough research. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO based on WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Page looks fine to me. Rama's car 09:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The above vote was made bu a person impersonating User:Rama's Arrow and has been blocked for it. He/she is more than likely the sockpuppet of a banned user. Ryūlóng 09:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very blatantly NPOV, and appears to violate WP:AUTO. Assuming the other facts are real and significant, I would be happy with a tidy-up. However, from the heavily non-neutral tone, it is possible that the claims or the significance of the achievements are bloated. Perhaps needs to be verified by an expert. Ohconfucius 09:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I fear it will be difficult to find a suitable subject expert who has access to the relevant journals (J Assoc Physicians India & Medical Journal Armed Forces India). Espresso Addict 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. On 15 August 2006, I personally asked the page's creator to tidy it up and referred him to a number of our guidelines. However, this has been ignored for two weeks, during which the page has not been improved inline with the Manual of Style or our NPOV guidelines. Bob talk 10:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Has a strong POV tone to it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.

1. How much more does a person has to achieve to make himself worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia?
2. The doctor's biography has been published by Marquis Who’s Who (American publishers of biographies of the best in the field) in Medicine and Healthcare.
3. Certainly he meets the criteria for inclusion.
4. The journals (JAPI - Journal of Association of Physicians of India, and MJAFI) which find the research of the doctor published are indexed with Index Medicus and are highly valued in India.
5. Maybe a reconsideration is required against the verdict of deletion.
6. Necessary minor editing may be adopted if considered necessary in order to make the article more readable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.187.169 (talk) .

• Comment: The Journal of Association of Physicians of India is Medline listed, but I can't find Medical Journal Armed Forces India there. Espresso Addict 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC) *MJAFI link from medind now added for reference.

• Delete As no independent WP:RS reliable sources are used. Our standard for biographical notability is at WP:BIO, and Who's Who is intentionally not listed in that standard, as entries therein are often offered on a fee for inclusion basis. Article formatting is also definitely not in accordance with the Manual of Style, but that is not a reason for deletion. GRBerry 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - or atleast wikify --T-rex 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ReverendG 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep has written original papers Doctor Bruno 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could you please clarify how simply writing an original paper (which almost all scientists and most physicians do) is a reasonable notability standard for inclusion, i.e., as differentiated from WP:PROF point 3, a significant and well-known paper or work? --Kinu ^t/_c 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Significant and well known are NOT OBJECTIVE criteria, but subjective criteria. Recognising Nutritional deficiencies (correctable cause) as a case of diarrhoea in HIV (at present incurable disease) is per se a notable achievement. I invite your attention to WP:PROF point 5 which suits this person adequately. Doctor Bruno 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I decided to debold your comment. And you're right, they are subjective criteria. I suppose based on my limited expertise as a healthcare researcher and a review of the articles themselves, I was not convinced per point 5... but obviously, other editors' mileage may vary. Nonetheless, thank you for providing the clarifications as to your position. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry for that bold text. That was a typo. I did not see the page after typing that comment. Well, you first said that you are not satisfied about 3. Now you say that you are not satisfied about 5 (after being pointed out) Can you be more specific as to what you expect per point 5 (as some one with expertise as health care researcher) so that it will be useful in future discussions _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think the original article was a copyright violation and part of it still exists. Links to Google (and other) searches do not meet requirements of verifiability, no original research, reliable sources and biographies of living people. It also has problems with NPOV. Unless someone digs up some proper references, it needs to be deleted. I removed all the crazy bolding and the circular internal links because it was too distracting and made it too hard to read. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete It's full of POV and needs a lot of cleanup. If the assertions in the article about the various medical discoveries are sourced and verified then I'd think it was worth keeping. As written, it should be deleted, especially if there are still copyright violations remaining. At minimum, those need to be deleted. Brian 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)btball
• Delete. Who = who can be bought. Publications should interesting but unless full citations are advanced we shouldn't need to verify them. Will reverse my vote if relevant papers are cited and their impact is stated; otherwise would simply fail WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Won't it be better and justified to enquire the credentials of Marquis Who’s Who.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.74.46 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep per Doctor Bruno Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. --Ragib 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Can someone please help with the minor editing and wikify the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.65.9 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete without prejudice of recreation if his work can be shown to be verifiably important or notable. Virtually every study in Pubmed reflects some sort of "first"; I'm not convinced his "firsts" are sufficiently important or notable (per WP:PROF). (Closing admin: please watch for 219.64.XXX.XXX socks.) -AED 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Stong Keep - Based on this article he has made significant contributions to the health profession. Work like this is vitally important and rarely recognized due to the technical nature of the material. His work establishes a foundation for many other sciences. I think it needs a rewrite, though, and clean up. Additional comment: I changed this to strong keep. His work with malaria alone makes him notable, in my opinion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KarateLady (talk • contribs) .KarateLadyKarateLady 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable as per nom. Style nauseating. Nephron  T|C 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VANITY ~ trialsanderrors 05:04, 2 September 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.

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 Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd.

nn companies Eng94 11:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• The primary WP:CORP criterion is satisfied, per the article. Keep. Uncle G 13:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, several references in newspapers provided inside article. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per both votes above. NawlinWiki 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:CORP and refrences has been cited. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, per Terence OngDoctor Bruno 18:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Very notable bank in India. Just for the record - "Bharat Overseas Bank" gives 24000 Ghits. Meets WP:CORP - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, major bank, meets WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, nominator fails to explain why this major Indian financial institution is not notable. RFerreira 06:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Balanced POV, well cited, meets WP:CORP. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:03, 31 August 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.

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 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GT Enterprises

NN Indian establishment - possible vanity article Blood red sandman 15:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hello. I am --fredericknoronha 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC) a journalist who writes on Free/Libre and Open Source Software in India, and Asia. I would like to state that I am the author of this article, have no stake whatsoever in GT Enterprises, and feel this article should be retained in view of the role played by this firm in promoting FLOSS in this part of the globe.

  Because I found Taranath newsworthy, I have written about him in the past, including here -- http://www.maailma.kaapeli.fi/asia.html : "Other firms like GTCdRom, run by former navy officer Taranath in Bangalore, attract huge crowds at IT events such as IT.Com held annually in that city which some consider the 'Silicon Valley of India'."

  When you call it a "possible vanity article" your assumption is that the author of this article is part of the firm itself, or in some way related to it. I would like to emphatically add that the only reason I write this is because I find the matter to be worthy of an entry in here, and feel that concerns of relevance to South Asia should also adequately reflect in the Wikipedia. Please check my other contributions to verify what I'm saying, and my possible motives. --fredericknoronha 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • To verify what you write, we need cited sources to show that this company satisfies our WP:CORP criteria for companies and corporations. Uncle G 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not meet WP:CORP. It is not listed on any stock market. Does not return any hits on Google news and as far as I could tell, it is not listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications. I could find some references about it being the one of the few Linux distributors in India, but that still does not make it a notable company. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 09:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Aksi_great. --Gurubrahma 06:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aksi_great. Wikipedia not a generic company directory. User:Yy-bo
• Delete per nom and per WP:CORP --Ragib 22:48, 7 September 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.

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. Assertion of notability is enough to avoid speedy deletion, but to be kept after the scrutinty of an AfD it needs to be verified - verifiability is non-negotiable and there is no indication that it will happen here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nandini Rajendran

Unreferenced article about a "renowned and popular social worker". Not sure about this one since I can't find any information to verify notability. Medtopic 06:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Difficult one. The article needs to assert this person's seniority in terms of government. If she is a member of a team of 20 people doing the same job, then it is not notable, but if she has done lots of work and is in a high position in the government presiding over teams AND has accomplished something notable, then I see no reason why this should be deleted. Let the article expand first. Benjaminstewart05:-) 09:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment per benstewart. i certainly don't think this one is a hoax or vanity. Difficult because google doesn't give any hits on this person except in wiki and its mirrors. she probably is covered in tamil newspapers. stall the afd for now atleast.--Ageo020 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as the lack of ability to verify anything about her means that having an article fails WP:V. GRBerry 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. GRBerry 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It's not as if we totally lack the ability to verify anything. We can at least verify that the body she is supposed to have headed, the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board, definitely exists, and in 2003 had a budget of Rs. 5,58,17,90,000, or US$119,946,653.07[1], which is a non-trivial amount in India. They also are well-known as the progenitors of the wildly successful Mid-day meal scheme that's been discussed ad nauseum in NGO circles. Some notability there, perhaps. Hornplease 05:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Please note that Google does not give you any hits regarding coverage in Local Media Doctor Bruno 19:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is asserted in the article. Whether or not she can be verified through the net on English websites may be an issue. I think someone with local knowledge should look at this article before it is deleted. There is a tag that can be added asking for expert attention. Mallanox 11:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hard to conclude that any info on this person is verifiable unless someone can actually produce a source; the web is pretty dry on the subject. Mangojuice^talk 16:49, 31 August 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.