Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalitstan (2nd nomination)

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalitstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 but asserts notability and has a fairly busy edit history. That said, the article is almost entirely self-sourced and the claim of notability might legitimately said to be unproven from the content. The article has been tagged for cleanup for over two years and is still well below standard. Was a "keep and cleanup" a year ago, but has not been cleaned up. Much of the content appears to be the work of Hkelkar and his socks. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep As per Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Poorly_written_article:
  "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion."
  The last deletion review, also created by JzG a year ago, was a snowball keep, with all 6 commentators electing to keep. Only nominator wanted deleted. travb (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Self sourced material which means it fails WP:RS. The Hindu article used as source talks about the leader and not much of the website. This is a good example of WP:COATRACK article and should be deleted. --GPPande 09:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this article is kept it should be moved to Dalitstan.org, as it is about the web site rather than the concept of Dalitstan as a homeland, which predates the web site as shown by a Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename-- This argument from the last AfD got my attention: "it was banned by the indian government, it is inherently notable. 1 billion people were denied access to this site (though I commend the Indian government)." --Jmundo (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That makes a lot of things notable. Empire3131 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I removed the OR passage, weeded out the assertion that it is 'hate group' and moved the page to dalitstan.org in order to clarify that the article is about the website. Notability is asserted. Keeping the article is important since the website has repeatedly been used as a reference across wikipedias. --Soman (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Soman. A somewhat prominent hate group, that has been cited by leftists and others opposed to the Sangh Parivar in various ways. Definitely notable and important.Pectore^talk 23:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important enough for a major government to ban. This was roundly defeated the last time the nominator tried and is heading that way again. Dance With The Devil (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.