Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nai Talim


 * 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 Numerous sources refer to the topic

Nai Talim

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

Article started a month ago but not materially edited since its creation. Not sufficient information to determine whether the subject is notable (or real). Unreferenced. Bongo matic  23:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A simple search for Nai Talim in Google gives sources from reliable Gandhi-related organizations for the top hits. Lack of activity is not a good reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 08:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lack of activity is not the reason for the nomination. The nomination is because as written, the article is unencyclopedic and neither asserts nor demonstrates notability of the subject. The nomination is for this article, not for some ideal article that could be—but hasn't been—written. The comment on activity explains why this wasn't nominated a month ago. Bongo  matic  09:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You should familiarize yourself with our Deletion policy, and with our Editing policy, as I linked to in the edit summary. We don't delete articles at AFD because they "don't assert notability".  That is nowhere in our policy.  We delete them because they are not actually notable, and determining that (as explained in Guide to deletion, Articles for deletion, User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, and &mdash; yes &mdash; deletion policy itself) involves you looking for sources yourself, in order to demonstrate that you have a sound basis for stating that the Primary Notability Criterion is not satisfied.  You clearly haven't looked for sources yourself, otherwise you'd have seen the many history books, other encyclopaedias, scholarly articles in journals, newspaper articles, and (as mentioned) WWW sites that document this subject in detail.  As such, you have no case that the subject is not notable, since you haven't done the research from which you could determine this. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem.  If you see a poor stub, you are supposed to expand it.  (Again, see User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage.)  Repeatedly nominating articles for deletion instead of spending your time looking for sources is zero help towards improving Wikipedia, and wastes other editors' time.  One ends up actually being the problem.  Put in the time to look for sources yourself and write.  Follow the triage procedure, and only come to AFD if you don't find any sources after looking.  You clearly are capable of writing.  You've written 3 paragraphs in this very discussion.  Expend that writing effort on actual article content, rather than deletion discussions.  Think how much just those 3 paragraphs worth of writing on your part would have improved this article. Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The title itself is sufficient information to determine that this is notable by simply doing a Google Books search and looking at a few of the 666 sources found. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 18 November 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.