Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayastha

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. Nominator did not give a reason for deletion.Cúchullain ^t/c 06:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kayastha

Kayastha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Highly biased treatment. Randy_LeJeune 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Revert to this version, and block User:Nikhil Srivastava for repeated vandalism. Did the nominator not look at the edit history? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - There seems to be an edit war going on over this article at present. I can't see any reason to delete the article, but it does need serious attention. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - No reason or rationale is given for deletion, either here or on the talk page. Retain it. - Rapscallion 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - No need to delete the article. Things are sometimes debatable, but deletion is no solution. Please do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.122.11.131 (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
• Comment - The nominator did not give a single reason as to why the article should be deleted so I don't believe it should be deleted. Raj712 08:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Amazed! Why is such a dispute, over an article which provides you with such an enormous amount of information, exisiting? I agree, opinions were expressed in the article and those were with solid bases, more solid than those on which many a popular truths exist today. Yet you protest, fine, I am ready to withdraw them for the present(only from the article). Now that I am ready to remove the objectionable material (which was very wisely communicated to me and has, in fact, been removed or reformed), how do you propose the page to be addressed as being biased? ‘Vandalism’ as you call it, is not my intention, nor can I be charged with it-if the case be discussed on basis of tangible proofs (of course, prejudices can’t be reasoned with). About My name being so frequent in the list of updates: It’s only a further proof of my readiness to acknowledge any information which I provide and be responsible for it, I say this on my Honour that doing good is my only intention in providing everyone with such an amount of information; I have reasons for every word I add. If I were bent on doing a mischief, I could have done it using a thousand false names(Internet is a beautiful medium for the shrewd and the unworthy!), if only my conscience would have allowed me to(and it won’t). As far as updates are concerned, you don’t like my doing it, do it yourself, update it with such information as I have done, with so much study as my good fortune has been to accomplish. I have nothing more to add.
  Nikhil Srivastava 16:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - "tangible proofs" like this one, you mean? BTW, if you want to "do it under a thousand false names", all that'll happen is your IP getting blocked. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:25, 9 April 2007 (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.