Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kokborok tei Hukumu Mission


 * 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. discussion to merge/redirect can take place at the talk page –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Kokborok tei Hukumu Mission

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable organization. Shovon (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: As pointed out by Juzhong below, the nominated version (sorry, admin only) appears to have been a copyright violation of this, I deleted those revisions. All comments below down through mine are based on the deleted version. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there is an indication of notability. Substantial published works and activities. The article needs work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Makes sense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. "conducting Kokborok programs in All India Radio, Agartala since April 1994. " That would pass WP:WEB's "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" (except for the online part, of course) Juzhong (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's kept it should be reverted back to because the current content appears to be copied from their website. Juzhong (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent catch, but you didn't go far enough. Whether it's kept or not, the copyvio has to go. I've reverted to the version you indicated and deleted the remaining versions as tainted. I'll put a note up top to notify the closer. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank God there are editors on wikipedia which protect all wikipedians from perceived and imaged legal threats which may or may not ever happen. I sleep better at night knowing their are so many valiant editors cutting other editor's contributions to pieces. travb (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kokborok_language Juzhong (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisting Comment No votes/comments were posted since Xymmax reverted to a non copyrighted version so a second relist seems to be warranted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, there was one !vote for a redirect. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect as suggested by Juzhong, moving content and refs. Not enough refs or info to keep as a stand-alone article, but worth mention in the Kokborok language article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge This article can merge in Kokborok language or Kokborok language can expand to Kokborok language and culture and merge this article in this. Aminami (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   10:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As per above, "there is an indication of notability. Substantial published works and activities." The article simply needs work, not deletion, I encourage the editor who put it up for deletion to take some time to improve the article, not delete it. travb (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I went looking for sources to try and improve it, but I found almost nothing from independent RS's. Juzhong (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2008 (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.