Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kambojas

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kambojas

• delete. Thoroughly useless as an encyclopedia article. Original research. A list of comments each and every menitioning of Kambojas in each and every text. Note I am not questioning the validity of the topic. I am against this article. IMO it is imposssible to clean it up. It is just a heap of raw data. Mikkalai 20:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes. Recently a huge chunk of it was moved into a separate article. Kambojas in Indian Traditions. Amost wikisource. Mikkalai 20:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    • User:Utcursch made the move - Maybe it may be good to consult him/her about it? Hedley 20:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I created a separate article because this was requested on article's talk page. Janitors find it hard to work on such long articles. utcursch | talk 06:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm unsure. 451 google hits for Kamboja. Topic is notable but the multitude of info suggests it maybe is original research, or more likely, copyvio from a book (Google doesn't bring up any suggestions of copyvio. Its impossible to clean up and shouldn't be in the mainspace but maybe someone who wants to could take up the task of cleaning it up in their user area? I won't vote delete as its a notable topic with seemingly plenty of info, yet its far too garbled for cleanup. Hedley 20:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. It's too bad it's so garbled, there is a lot of (probably) good data here. Scimitar
• Keep. Though the article is massive, and in poor condition, in perusing the talk page, it appears that there are those working to clean it up, and respond to critique that the article is too large. It's been a few days since the last edit, but it looks like it is being worked on fairly often. As far as it being original research, those in favor of moving it to Wikisource may be correct, but I do not support deletion. EvilPhoenix
  • On this view, it could be better to move the current text to Kambojas/Temp, and then keep a basic stub until it is cleaned up. This page isn't that you want to see on random page. Hedley 22:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The page is now at User:Hedley/Kambojas in case it is deleted during attempts to clean it up. Hedley 22:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I checked version difference for several recent edits, and it does not appear to me at all that it is cleanup; it is rather pumping more and more raw data into it. The only possible solution is a complete rewrite from scratch, rather than cleanup. Of course, the material may be preserved, but not in the main article space. Heck, from the article it is even not clear whether Kambojas live today or not (or I am just too lazy to find it in the article). Mikkalai 22:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Dear Mikkalai, of course, you are too lazy. The Kambojas still live in northern India, mainly in Panjab (Kamboj/Kambohs) and also in Afghanistan as Siyaposh tribes( Kamoz/Camojes/Kams). Though their numbers have greatly dwindled, and currently, total population still known by their ancient name(s) is etimated to be about 1.5 million approx. pl read: Kambojas and Kambohs section under Kambojas.KLS
  • I admit I am lazy, but not very "too". I am just an average reader. The section you refer me to is not only the very last one, it is some 50 pages down thru heaps and heaps of quotations from ancient texts in sanscrit. What you have written here belong not here, but in the very first lines of the article. I can only explain this by complete disregard of potential readers. IMO the current article is just a scratchpad for someone's original research. Mikkalai 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup, I know, I know. KLS
  • I do agree that topic is a genuine one and wikipedia should have an article on this, actually I wanted to clean up (my comments on article' talk page), but I gave up, as I found that any cleanup will require a massive re-write, days of efforts, and saying goodbye to a lot of raw data. I suggest editors who placed these materials to remove certain sections and redo the remaining portions. I can do that myself - but I donot want to invite adverse comments, which such an action may entail.--Bhadani 02:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I suggest to move all raw data into the talk page and fetch necessary pieces whenever necessary. The article must be made readable ASAP, since I do not deny it is an important topic and I am repeating again and again, my move is to delete the content, not the article itself. Mikkalai 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up Stancel 00:55, 14 May 2005(UTC)
• Keep, it is a worthwhile subject but the references are way too many and too un-structured. I just cleaned up the Alexander and Mauryan Empire parts. Still a lot to be done (slashed?) on the rest of the article. PHG 03:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please notice that my move was against the content, which is to be deleted, because we are not writing research papers here. It is perfectly OK if a new article will be written. Mikkalai 17:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I do agree completely with Mikkalai - I did a cleanup of two sections and merged them into one. The entire cleanup is a massive task, and a lot of info will have to be made compact. Let me see what can be done - for last few days, I was engaged in editing the WP:COTW Culture of Ancient Rome, may be this week I will try to do something about this article. I am afraid unless more editors step in, it shall continue to be a difficult task.--Bhadani 19:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable topic but article needs work. Capitalistroadster 09:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)pecial:c
• Keep- I record a formal vote to keep, though earlier I had given comments here as well as on article discussion page. My only worry is that the size of the article should be made a bit compact, references may be rationalized and duplication should be avoided. Further, cleanup and wikification of the contents must continue on an on-going basis.--Bhadani 01:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep and cleanup. Bubamara 23:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. Deletion is not the solution. Maybe put it at Wikipedia:Article improvement drive. utcursch | talk 06:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• The artical is obviouslly way too long, but I don't see how deleting all of this information helps anybody. I would be for breaking it down into sub articals, but not for deleting it.

above unsigned vote by 4.157.35.40. utcursch | talk 07:38, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.