Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim foodstalls in Singapore


 * 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.  Majorly   (hot!)  21:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Muslim foodstalls in Singapore

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is composed entirely of original research and is on a topic that is probably not notable, so I don't think reliable sources could be found. Even if they could be found, the article would still have to be rewritten from scratch. I should mention that it is part of the NUS Scholars Programme series of articles. nadav 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As far as I can tell it is pure OR. In anycase I am not entirely sure that this is a suitable topic for a encyclopedia article, unless it is well documented by reputable sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's getting from bad to worse... this time they really have no cited sources - unlike in history of cremation in Singapore and Northlight School - which could allow me to say "keep" in good conscience.
 * Delete as original research. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-26 00:27Z 
 * Delete as it is not notable and is just original research.--Mendors 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rather a narrow topic but an interesting insight into multi-cultural harmony. I do not understand these calls of "OR" and "unsourced". The source is public information which anyone in Singapore can easily check for themselves. I do not ask for references - no SGpedian has changed the facts so I assume they are all true. -- RHaworth 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am surprised at you. This article seems to be the very reason WP:V was written. It explicitly says that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."  Explain to me how this article is consistent with that policy.  If, however, it's the policy you disagree with, then you came to the wrong forum. nadav 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC) And no SGpedian has bothered to vote keep either.  nadav 21:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR--Sefringle 04:35, 30 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.