Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddy Task Force (PTF)

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 fixed and user blocked. . can someone check I restored the best version Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Task Force (PTF)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An untidy, poorly (in fact not at all) formatted page. It seems to border on an advertisement in some places and a lesson in how to work the paddy fields in others. It goes into way too much detail and seems largely non-notable. Oh, and no references. Half Price (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to be completely plagiarised from here too. --Half Price (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - It isn't a copyvio. Servinghistory scrapes stuff from various sources including Wikipedia but apparently hasn't credited the source. Coverage in reliable sources is lacking. [1] and [2] were all I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore per user:Salih. We should bring the original article and topic back. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep and restore original name and content per Salih below. Redirect to Indian Council of Agricultural Research, where it is already mentioned. I considered trying to rescue this article (it would require a complete rewrite; it is currently half essay, half how-to), but the few references available are not sufficient to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a complete mess. It seems notable and real enough to me, but there is extremely little content in this article worth including in anything; most of it is irrelevant. Also, the page should exist at Paddy Task Force if it exists at all, which I personally think it should - but someone who knows something about it and is going to write an encyclopaedia article on it should take care of that. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Kvkpanniyur has created this article by first replacing the content about a coconut mite by the present content and then moving the older title Eriophyes guerreronis to the present title "Paddy Task Force (PTF)". The present article is a real mess. So it is better to move back to the older title and keep the content about the coconut mite. Salih (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's really weird. They actually did it TWICE - the first time was reverted. I agree with you, restore the original name and the original content. Anything that need to be said about the PTF can be said at Indian Council of Agricultural Research. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current version and restore older page as pointed by Salih. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore per Salih.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2010 (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.