Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arikomban


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Per WP:Speedy keep#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Arikomban

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Removed PROD. Terribly written NPOV violation. Withdrawn. Drowssap SMM  ( talk ) (contributions) 18:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Asia, India,  and Kerala.  Drowssap SMM  ( talk ) (contributions) 18:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * AFD is for deciding whether administrators should exercise the administrator-only deletion tool. It is not for things that you can quite easily deal with yourselves with the tools that you have, such as by reverting to Special:Permalink/1159804585 and trying to develop the article from there again. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Proquest has 254 hits for the name, seems likely to meet GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nomination reason seems ridiculous. Is nominating for deletion is the procedure to deal with articles having NPOV issues. I don't think it is. Use appropriate tags instead or try to clean the mess up. The subject has received coverage from international medias such as BBC and CNBC . Why should BBC cover about a rogue elephant from India if it is not that much important. This elephant is the subject of an upcoming Malayalam movie which is under pre-production. This itself implies the importance of this elephant. Besides there are plenty of coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. 111.92.124.104 (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - extensive media coverage is available; but by all means roll this back to a non-embarassing state. The version suggested above by Uncle G seems reasonable. There seems to be a year-long three-sided skirmish going on at the article about who can add the most cringeworthy POV material, that has to stop. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:49, 26 November 2023 (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.