Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian folklore

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The result of the debate was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Metamagician3000 07:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian folklore

Notable subject, but article non-notable as written. Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  04:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Itihasa. The topic deserves better treatment than this elementary-school-level substub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• redir per starblind M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• merge Merge into Itihasa. Redirect would lose content.
• Weak Keep and Revert to 13 September 2005 version. Bad writing (or extremely bad writing) in and of itself ought not be the criterion for deletion. Indian folklore is certainly a more intuitive title than Itihasa. Fluit 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Folklore is not the same as history. Redirecting it to Itihasa is incorrect. It definitely needs some attention, though. Ted 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until someone comes around to write a real article. Keeping this won't help, and not deleting it may actually hurt. Somebody who stumbles across this randomly may form a bad impression of Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 02:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I just realized that we'd better be very careful about labeling someone's living religion as mere "folklore." That's what the stub as it is now implies. Am I the only one who thinks that could possibly be offensive? I really think this ought to be left to an expert who is qualified to separate Indian religion from folklore. Brian G. Crawford 02:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The way the article is written now, it isn't even clear what is being identified as folklore. Hence the need for a major re-write and expansion. Edit: How can we leave this to a qualified expert if we delete this article? -- backburner001 03:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If the subject is notable, the article should stay. Tag it for cleanup, edit for NPOV, and keep it tagged as a stub. -- backburner001 02:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Backburner. Who knows, this could, one day, after only being a faint gleam in the eyes of some, become a featured article! Morgan Wick 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep important article that got vandalized. I have reverted. But still needs lots of expansion and illustration. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Horribly written but should exist and be expanded. The current attempt is a major failure and is almost devoid of savable content. I can go either way on this one but the artilce should exist but the author has, without bad intentions, completely failed. Major rewrite.--Nick Y. 02:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• It is definitely an important article and there are a number of books available on same book. However I am not knowledgeable or have no interest on the subject. Someone has to come for its rescue. Deletion may not help. as I feel. User:Malapati
• Keep until someone gets round to paying it proper attention. In the meantime, tag it appropriately. Tyrenius 03:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep expand and cleanup. Notable topic but definite room for improvement in the article. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup tag --Astrokey44 03:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, topic is notable. --Terence Ong 03:59, 10 May 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.