Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalakat Illam (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Delete. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹   20:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Kalakat Illam
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dubious notability for this Brahmin family. It has been tagged for notability for some time, so a discussion is in order. I will lean delete at the moment. Safiel (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - the whole article and deletion process concerning it is a complete clusterfuck. The article should have been userfied and deleted in 2005 in accordance with consensus at AfD, and I'm quite unhappy that was not done. I could and have seriously considered re-closing the original AfD, which would be to userfy the article and delete the redirect, which would result in the article eventually disappearing with nobody being notified what has happened to it or being given a chance to rectify the numerous problems with the text.
 * There is no sensible reason for the article being forced through a second AfD, the PROD notice was perfectly adequate to allow interested parties to remedy the issues and challenge deletion, or allow us to delete the article with the minimum of bureaucracy, but for some unfathomable reason, decided to remove the PROD and force a full AfD discussion. Time consuming tediousness for no good reason, apart from blind adherence to some woefully outdated guidelines. Complete fucking shambles, as usual, from Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's make something perfectly clear. I am not responsible in any way for mistakes that were made concerning the first AfD. Wikipedia policy bars Proposed deletion in this case. I DID NOT MAKE THIS POLICY. If you don't like the policy, go to Village Pump and make a proposal to modify the policy. But don't ****ing go off on me for following policy. Makes no ****ing bit of difference in the end anyhow. A PROD takes a week. An AfD takes a week. Make your argument with Wikipedia, not me. Safiel (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy bars nothing. Policy is not absolute, as indicated on the policy page. It can and should be sensibly ignored in cases such as these. We also have WP:IAR for which this is a textbook example. Nick (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Policy is not absolute, but it is ridiculous to criticize someone for following it like this. I disagree that this is a valid example of IAR; the discussion was NINE years ago, and there could have been a huge amount of change in the mean time. Had you gone back and changed the close of an absolutely ancient AfD, then that would've been very WP:POINTy. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (collogue)  @ 15:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 18:54, 29 November 2014 (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.