Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakhub

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 Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 22:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakhub

Pakhub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The website in question does not deserve a mention in any reputable logbook of knowledge, such as Wikipedia. The website is an attempt to voice nationalist propoganda in a medium as powerful as Wikipedia. This underground website has been made by nationalists who have made gross factual inaccuracies and childish errors. Kindly delete this effort of listing an underground, nationalist website on Wikipedia. Freedom skies 20:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - dangerous for the project --D-Boy 20:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Before anyone deletes this I would like to talk to a Neutral moderator. Neutral meaning non Indian.

Check out this screenshot and understand that Neutrality is a term my fellow Indian friends dont understand. http://upload.pwnage.nu/files/upload2/pakhub-threat.JPG Half of them are members of extremist Hindu forums, who try illegal ways of getting me shut down.

THIS IS NOT an advertisement. This is a description of our argument. Its one thing you dont wish to read it, but another that you wish to stop other people from reading it.

Unre4L 21:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Website was created less than a month ago. Doesn't show up on Google or Alexa when the address is searched. --Wafulz 21:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Search for "pakhub home" on google

Even though I fail to see your argument. Unre4L 21:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Try this --Wafulz 21:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD A7 -- Selmo ^(talk) 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The site is not in question. The site is only given as an external link. The main body of the article describes the dispute in question.

I thought this was suppose to be a discussion. Not a bunch of people typing speedy delete Unre4L 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're disputing then- this is an article about a website. The website meets speedy deletion criteria --Wafulz 21:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete; per nomination; there's no need to drag us into your pissin' match. --Mhking 21:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about a dispute which you can find all over the net. I used one site as an external link. Unre4L 21:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This article qualifies for speedy deletion as a non-notable web site, and as a spam article. --Mhking 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish to similar article describing this dispute. I am willing to edit the current article to make it abide by the rules. What exactly do you wish me to change about it? Unre4L 22:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The dispute does not meet notability criteria, sourcing criteria, verifiability criteria, or original research criteria. I don't have the slightest clue of what this article is about. It says it's about a website and you say it's about a dispute. Either way, none of the policies or guidelines I've mentioned are met. --Wafulz 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed references to the website in the main body of the articles. I wish to expand the article to describe the dispute in more detail. I will need more time for this. I suggest removing the speedy Deletion templates while I expand the article and add whatever you are requesting. Unre4L 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

From your user page and contributions, it's pretty clear you have a conflict of interest and an agenda here to push your own point of view. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Just because you dislike how articles are named or how they refer to India/Pakistan doesn't mean you can label it a "dispute" and then create an article. --Wafulz 22:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I can provide you with dozens of links showing I am not the only person who is disagreeing with this subject. Like I said. I will carify all this, all I need is another chance to expand the article. Unre4L 22:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not an advertising space, neither is it a discussion forum. Your site violates norms of factual accuracy and any effort to publish an underground site whether it's about Jesus being alien or Pakhub, will meet with an afd tag. Indian or not Indian is not the issue here, the issue is do underground, factually incorrect websites with two articles and a forum deserve a mention in Enclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia ? Can we write an enclyclopedic article about people who spell worse than porn sites? The answer is an emphatic no. Live with it.

Freedom skies 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Delete the article. but please note this place is full of Hindu extremist who have attacked the site, and been on my back since I argued with them. They will obviously make sure nobody willing to argue will be heard. Mods like you show you couldnt care less. Good luck. I am out of here. P.s You should take a look at the so called Indian history articles if you think I have a conflict of interest. Unre4L 22:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I still want to make an article describing this dispute in detail. Please let me know more about how I can do this without breaking any rules or offending anyone here. Unre4L 22:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Try finding citations from Stanley Wolpert, or someone similar. Using JSTOR is a good way. Freedom skies 22:34, 24 December 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.