Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durga Nanda Jha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Durga Nanda Jha

Durga Nanda Jha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:N - nominal Ghits are Wikipedia mirrors or sites like Geocities. Last substantive edit was March 2007 (at creation). Cricketgirl (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article is unsubstantial and may be little more than a stub. Not enough WP:N. It also has hints of WP:POV because one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Artene50 (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Stub is not a reason for deletion. If it is, hit the botany pages and start deleting thousands of plant articles. POV? What's POV about it? Oh the martyr, I'll remove that. If he is the assassin and was executed for the assassination attempt, which is well known for impact the King's and his brother's life, then he earned an article. But I don't know if this name is correct or anything. If it's POV change it. --Blechnic (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for removing the POV. Cricketgirl (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No problem. But that was pretty basic, and it probably took you more time to mention it here than delete it there. In my opinion the longer total crap stays on Wikipedia the worse the encyclopedia looks and that was pure crap. It seems so easy to remove it, it's hard for me to understand why it should be discussed instead of removed. --Blechnic (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question What is the editing policy? This is nominated for deletion in part because its "last substantive edit was March 2007," and I can't find the wiki policy about number of substantive edits required. Again, I'm thinking close to 75% of species articles on Wikipedia, which are mostly stubs with few edits, are going to need to go up for deletion to comply with these policies. --Blechnic (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. deletion reason seems to be that it's not referenced properly and is a stub, not that it's not notable. 136.142.117.156 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The IP poster is correct, this hasn't been nominated for a valid reason. "nominal Ghits" are Wikpedia mirrors is not a deletion reason. And nominator hasn't justified how last date of edit is a policy for deletion, seems to have lost interest if there was any in the nomination. Date of edit isn't a deletion policy. Two wrongs make nothing. --Blechnic (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This article fails WP:N This is a Google search on his precise name:here Many of these hits are from answers.com or wikipedia and just mirror copies of this article. That is sufficient reason to remove this article. Artene50 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I still don't see proof of notability here. "nominal Ghits are Wikipedia mirrors" - I know that Ghits are not the be all and end all - but usually they are a decent measuring stick. My comment about "last substantive edit" was to indicate that the article's creator appears to have abandoned it, not as a "we should delete this because it isn't active". If someone edits the article to show notability (and preferably references it) I will gladly withdraw the nomination. But last time I checked, failing WP:N was a pretty good reason for deletion. Cricketgirl (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The article's "creator" does not own the article, so your point is more confusing. Throwing ghits at other editors is not basis for deletion, either. Precisely why do you think that the attempted assassin of a sitting king is not a notable subject for an enccylopedia? Maybe if you elaborate on why you think regicide is not notable, others can understand where you're coming from. Regicide is one of those crimes that tends to get extensive long-term international attention. This particular attempted assassination is mentioned in Britannica and a couple of other on-line encyclopedias. Again, if you can help establish why Wikipedia should not note this particular regicide or the person who committed it (the name not available through a free glance, only the king) then others could understand where you're coming from and might agree with you. But, to repeat, "owner gone AWOL" isn't a reason for deletion on an encyclopedia where there are no owners of articles. --Blechnic (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2008 (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.