Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural History of South Asia mailing list (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 keep/no consensus Opinion is certainly split. On the one hand, per trialsanderrors, there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed. The counterargument to this seems to be failure to meet WP:WEB. There are assertions made here that aren't well-countered that this is more than a mere mailing list, so WP:WEB may not apply. I put "keep" first because I think the keep arguments are the stronger here, but there certainly is not a consensus strong enough to delete this article. Mango juice talk 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural History of South Asia mailing list

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

closure of first AFD as delete was overturned for relisting at deletion review, in significant part due to a rewrite the article reportedly got during the first AFD. Procedural nomination on my part, I have no opinion. Original deletion nomination was "non notable MLs". GRBerry 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. --Ragib 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The claim of notability isn't backed up. Per WP:WEB, Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.. So, mere mention of the mailing list or inclusion on a list of "things related to India" is not a justification of notability (most of the "references" to the mailing list seem to just mention this trivially). --Ragib 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Has ANY academic publications made non-trivial mentions, discussions of this mailing list? Thousands of mailing lists are reported trivially in research papers -- those one-line mentions do not make them notable. The article claims it has been mentioned by academic journals - yet a look into those "references" show no more than a single line mention of the list, most likely under the "links" sections.
 * Several links/references in the article appear to be to fraudelent, pointing to nameless webservers rather than the organizations they are supposed to be. For example, a reference "Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA", points to a server hosted at 144.16.65.194  (which is an Indian organisation), the reference 9 therefore points to this page rather than an actual website of the American Museum of Natural History. The page too seems to be a list of links from an email archive. --Ragib 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The "claim" that the Journal "Indian Birds" cite it is also dubious ... my search of the reference (8) shows a single link "NAT-HISTORY INDIA: vivek@ee.princeton.edu" (sic) to the name ... without even a one-liner mention!! --Ragib 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The "claim" that Ecological Society of America has cited it is also dubious ... my search of reference (10) shows two sentences in the news letter:
 * For those interested in the natural history of the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and other neighboring countries) there is a subscription electronic bulletin board called, "NATHISTORY-INDIA". This bulletin board contains information about happenings, crises, news events, information requests, etc. It is a must list to be on if you are working on the Indian subcontinent. To subscribe send a request to vivek@EE.Princeton.EDU and he will sign you up.
 * Such trivial mentions are made to thousands and thousands of mailing lists, but that isn't really a "cited by journal", and hence the claim is dubious. --Ragib 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The "claim" that IUCN has cited it (reference 12), is actually a single sentence on page 33 of a paper, without any non-trivial coverage.
 * The "claim" that the "Eaglenest Biodiversity Project" has cited it (reference 11) is actually a single sentence in the acknowledgments section of the report (that too to Mr. Vivek Tiwari, and NOT the mailing list). --Ragib 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances of this fake "citations"/"Evidence of notability", I request people who has been misled by this to reconsider their votes and check the claims themselves to decide whether this mailing list is at all as notable as it claims to be. Also, note to closing admin, please consider these fake or misquoted "references" that has affected some users into voting for "keep". Thanks. --Ragib 23:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete While some people on the mailing list may well be individually notable, the list itself clearly is not.--Anthony.bradbury 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * RESTORE / DO NOT DELETE / KEEP: This article is about something more then a mailing list, it is often referred to as the "NATURAL HISTORY NETWORK" of India or South Asia, it also serves as WILDERNESS TELEGRAM SYSTEM of sorts, the subject of this article has become an NGO in itself helping its members many of whom are grassroots workers in the fields of Nature & Wildlife Conservation, students, scientists, prominent members of other NGOs, many "News Makers" in these field report directly to the NETWORK, simultaneously or before commercial news channels report on the matter, discoveries, poaching, habitat encroachments, proposed government protected area notifications and the unfortunate de-notifications, illegal wildlife trade observed, wildlife trade seizures, Endangered Tiger & Panther etc. etc. bone and skin seizures, proposed government policy changes affecting the environment before they come into effect, proposed dams which will submerge large chunks of the last remaining pristine forests etc are just a few things reported and debated by this NETWORK many a times bringing corrective action in time. This is a list dealing with issues faced by Indian Naturalists, conservationists, and NGOs who network on it thankfully, including members of related Government institutions, IT CAN ONLY BE COMPARED WITH OTHER LISTS OF THE REGION dealing with similar issues and it stands head and shoulders above the rest, most of the top people in the field in the region are subscribers or know of its reputability. It is a notable achievement in India in its field, please understand that before taking the argument around the world comparing ORANGES with APPLES i.e. with just other sundry mailing lists. Thankyou Atulsnischal 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If searched on the internet in Google Search Engine etc. as "Natural History of South Asia", "NatHistory-India" or "nathistory-india@Princeton.EDU", it has ample amount of hits which also speaks well about this List's notability. Atulsnischal 06:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not really a proof of notability, as even my email address or an alumni mailing list I maintain gets a lot of hits. --Ragib 07:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry let me rephrase my comment: Comment: If searched on the internet in Google Search Engine etc. as "Natural History of South Asia", "NatHistory-India" or "nathistory-india@Princeton.EDU", it brings up more then 1000 search results where this list is mentioned in various documents and websites on the world wide web which also speaks well about this List's notability. (I have personally not checked all thousand search results though) Atulsnischal 08:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC) "NatHistory-India"- Notability Check on Google: Over 900 Results, "nathistory-india@PRINCETON.EDU"- Notability Check on Google: 115 Results and "Natural History of South Asia"- Notability Check on Google: 51 Results Atulsnischal 10:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, again, I myself get 58,000+ hits in google. By this argument, I am more notable than this list!!! The very low number of hits actually goes against the claim of notability ... :) --Ragib 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Leading to the logical solution of giving Mr. Ragib his own wikipedia page :)  Baka man  23:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep : There really should be better defined policies and guidelines. The current notability criteria should, if interpreted fairly result in no email discussion group and only a few websites as articles. Books about websites are perhaps very few. This is also an example of systemic bias, since there are more Linux enthusiasts around than naturalists and this would ensure that the article on Linux kernel mailing list gets voted as popular and thereby "notable". The earlier deletion debate suggested LinuxChix, FlyLady as notable because the founder/list was mentioned in a couple of magazines, while it has been argued that postings on this list have been cited in newspaper articles, but the list itself has not been the subject of any books/secondary sources. In the absence of a clear policy that takes the personal interpretations out and avoids systemic biases, I vote Keep. Shyamal 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We have clear guidelines that take the personal interpretations out and that avoid systemic biases. You're explicitly choosing to not follow them, for entirely fallacious reasons. If you want to learn the fallacy of "Books about websites are perhaps very few.", please visit a good quality bookshop, where you will find quite a few books that document web sites.  Ironically, it is your argument above that exhibits bias and personal interpretation, boiling down as it does to "I doubt that sources exist for mailing lists and web sites, but I personally like this one and want to include it anyway.".  I suggest that you actually base your arguments upon finding and citing sources, rather than your personal biases.  (It's surprising what is documented.  One simply has to pull one's finger out and look.)  Sources are good arguments here at Wikipedia.  "I like it." is not. Uncle G 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments nothing much to say and no longer interested in debating this in isolation. The debate has two parts (1) Mailing lists - can they ever be encylopaedia worthy ? If that is so, then we need to re-look at (2) Notability criteria for mailing lists. As it stands from a basic reading - ALL items without exception in Category:Mailing lists should be deleted. Software for running mailing lists should be under something like mailing list software or Social software or such like. Since I appear to be alone on this, I leave this for now to spend my energies on more constructive activities. Shyamal 07:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify again, LinuxChix and FlyLady are not just mailing lists, though they started as mailing lists. utcursch | talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I sympathize with your views on the notability of Linux Kernel Mailing List and note that you have taken significant interest in protecting it from the AfD and finding "proof" of notability. I am unable to find any mention of a "book with a chapter about the mailing list". An amazon review merely adds a keyword. Many items of the article are merely making use of pointers to the Linux Kernel which is definitely notable. Other trivia such as the information about the logo of Linux being decided is questionable given that wired magazine has serious doubts about the author. The Kernel Traffic newsletter is no longer maintained but that makes a "reliable secondary" source. To you the statement that the list is a "bazaar" makes it notable. If popularity and numbers make it notable, then so be it. But then admins cite the guidelines only when it is in your favour. Why was WP:BIGNUMBER not mentioned in the LKML afd which passed. I understand WP:INN and I am willing to accept that predicting an earthquake using a scientific hypothesis, finding a new species of bird (Ok, you have said that the list would have been notable if bird species were being regularly discovered and reported on this list - please note that species, especially of birds are rarely discovered the way Linux Kernel patches are announced), being in the front cover of every issue of a journal and being cited in conservation newsletters is not enough notability. Anyway, there are other species discoveries which have been announced on the list.  and there is a lot of legislation happening through this network. The links on the article seem to have all that is mentioned here, but I understand that finally it is going to be an WP:ILIKEIT - WP:IDONTLIKEIT decision. And someone lower down has exemplified systemic bias by pointing out that this is a narrow subject dealt with in one (unknown I suppose) country. I understand that the new breed of admins are trying to make wikipedia into another Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Remember that all these arguments would have ensured the absence of very useful articles of the kind that set wikipedia apart. I understand that each admin has their own subject of special interest and knowledge, but that doesn't entitle anyone to belittle other topics. Remember also that unlike programmers, there are people in other disciplines who are not spending time blogging, making websites etc. and creating a whole load of google hits. I hope you understand that you are ultimately making a subjective decision. To make it you do need to have some feel for the subject in question. If it is truly objective, which is unlikely, then there should be no selective amnesia about WP:guidelines and policies. Shyamal 01:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncle G has already said much of what I'd like to say in response to your accusations of systemic bias, subjective decisions and "selective amnesia". About your arguments for notability of the list, "other species discoveries" were not first announced at the list -- they are merely forwarded announcements ( is a forwarded doc that was originally published Magnolia Press; lists all binary attachments, only two of which are announcements of discoveries, and both are forwarded press releases). And I couldn't find any sources for "a lot of legislation happening through this network". As about LKML, if you feel it's non-notable, please nominate it again for AfD. Unlike Windows/Solaris/Mac OS, the Linux kernel development doesn't take place in a company office -- LKML is the place for it. The book I'm talking about is Linux Kernel Development (ISBN 978-0672327209) by Robert Love; the chapter is Chapter 20. In case you find the Wired magazine article questionable, here are the original posts by Alan Cox and Linux Torvalds. And I would like to say for the fourth time, I am not "belittling" the list -- I appreciate the work being done here, but I don't think it deserves an article of its own on Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 05:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge : Since all this is leading to nothing constructive may I suggest here something that is hopefully a win-win situation. The information here can go into the article on history of conservation in India (yet to be created, but already proposed at WP:PAI). The content here can come into a section on the role of the Internet in conservation. I suppose it is finally the information that matters, not the existence of the article in a particular form and hopefully a topic like the history of conservation in India will not be considered a non-encyclopaedic subject by the kind folks here. Atul, I hope this will be ok with you. Shyamal 11:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Following 2 Comments from Shyamal and me are copied by me here from personal communication from our Talk page for record Atulsnischal 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Atul, from what I can see the article on nathistory India cannot possibly ever make for encyclopaedic content. However there is a way to incorporate and highlight the role of the group and the ideal place would be to place it within the History of conservation in India article as a section on the contribution of the Internet era. Hope this is fine with you. Cheers. Shyamal 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Shyamal, You are welcome to change your Vote :), but it is only one vote, there is no need to panic, you might want to save a work copy of the article though in case it is deleted and hidden again. As for me I believe it is encyclopedic, I will like the article to stay as it is. But you have a very very good point, you can also always do what you propose above, great and a fitting idea in itself. So I suggest NO Delete And Merge, Keep the article as it is, yet have a section on the contribution of the list in other major conservation articles on India and elsewhere. Exactly as you say it should be also mentioned in the Contributions of the Internet Era to the Natural History and the Conservation of the region. As for me I firmly believe it is encyclopedic in itself to have a article on this South Asian Natural History Network. Thanks for your input Atulsnischal 11:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable in academic circles. Baka man  05:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please drop a note on my talk page, if you find some references to establish notability in academic circles. I'd change my vote to Keep. utcursch | talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - an article about a mailing list, are you serious? While the ideas behind it might be great, a mailing list is of less notability than a Usenet newsgroup. Most of the references/links merely refer to the mailing list in directory form, rather than make the mailing list itself the feature of the reference. - fchd 06:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per Shyamal --D-Boy 10:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is a mailing list about a fairly narrow topic. If it were, for example, the first ducment use of a mailing list, or something like that I would be much more for keeping it.  IT however is not but about a narrow topic in a single country.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "2B or not 2B = ?."...I vote: Keep this article
 * It passes my review for verifiability, No original research, neutral point of view, Civility, No personal attacks, copyright policy and gets 51 points for Notability.
 * This article is important for some people and may draw new users to the list.
 * South Asia +Natural History + Electronic + mailing list = Natural History of South Asia mailing list. Is not the whole equel or even greater than the sum of its parts?
 * Reminds me of discussion about Western ghats and ATREE. Let the supporters improve the article and Let it be.-Marcus 17:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if it could pass notability criteria too. According to your definition of notability, I get 75,300 points for Notability. utcursch | talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to another a new article per Shyamal and Delete per my comments at first AfD and Deletion review/Log/2007 March 9. I appreciate the great work being done at the list, but this is a case of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:COI. Atulsnischal's argument that notability is established by a little above 1000 Google results doesn't go well down with me -- that's pretty less for a mailing list actually. The assertion that it's "something more then a mailing list", "Natural History Network of South Asia", "Wilderness Telegram System" is entirely based on perception of the editor (apparently, the creator of the mailing list mentions himself as "Co-oridinator, South Asian Natural History Network" in endorsement of a book). Shyamal's assumption that the article on LKML and LinuxChix exist because of "systemic bias" or lobbying by Linux users is flawed. LKML is official bazaar for Linux kernel development and the article cites plenty of references (including a book that has a chapter dedicated to it). Again comparing this list to LinuxChix is against WP:INN, but let me point out again that it's not just a mailing list (though it started as one). I don't know much about FlyLady, but LinuxChix is a community with chapters in multiple countries, and it has been the subject of many secondary sources (the article lists plenty of them). If you feel that they are non-notable, feel free to nominate them for deletion. I'd like to emphasize that I respect the work being done at this list. But, it's simply not notable to deserve an article  -- none of the references/external links establish notability. utcursch | talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As pointed in comments above. If prediction of an earthquake on the list, report of a new species, references to the list on journals and newsletters and newspapers is not enough for notability, fine with me. And if mentions in a Linux book and a few reports of questionable authority can make LKLM notable, then this is just a case of WP:ILIKEIT /WP:IDONTLIKE. And using popularity/google hits as notability will always work when it comes to web or software related material. Finally, I would like to see administrators help in defining or refining policy and not merely use policy citations to win debates. Shyamal 05:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. What is this article? A joke? It doesn't even merit this dragged on discussion. Aditya Kabir 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, you haven't given a reason for deletion. Trebor 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Is notability asserted? Scientific mail list that produced a number of noteworthy predictions, check. Is assertion documented? Outside sources, check. Is the article written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone? Check. I don't see the policy failure here. ~ trialsanderrors 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where are the "number of noteworthy predictions"? There is only one prediction, which is not confirmed. utcursch | talk 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * 1) Mailing lists of this sort are very important in the academic world generally. All small groups of scholars use them, and they have ben as important means of scientific communication since Usenet days. The size of a particular list is irrelevant--what is necessary is that the list be notable in its own field. Its own field is the study of the subject it covers. What is necessary is that it be a principle method of communication for the specialists in the subject.
 * 2) This is demonstrated by the use made of it, and the references made to it.
 * 3) It is time for WP to recognize the conventions of the medium which is the substrate for its own existence.  The people who work  find references to the (virtual) places at which they want to work on the web, They do not find them in printed books or journals; they do not even find them in on-line journals. They learn about them from their use by other comparable web places. The distinctive characteristics of most of these places is that their editorial control is relatively weak but not non-existent. Usually it's there. almost all serious mailing lists have a moderator (In this instance it's Vivek Tiwari.  Most are published from a major academic institution. In this case it's Princeton. Usually the good one have established their reputation with time. This one has been going for 12 years now.
 * 4) How do we judge whether they should have articles on WP? The same basic way as anything else, RSs, the presence of encyclopedic content, and some indicators of importance. The sort of indicators we use for other media are such things as number of books an author has published and where he has published them, number of recordings a musician has produced, and so on.  We look for number of users--considering the size of the subject, the almost 1000 members is very respectable. We look for the importance of contributions to it (some have been demonstrated). We look for references and recommendations to it in other sources (some have been demonstrated). DGG 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many lists with size over 1000. And if this list is "very important in the academic world", where are the sources for the same? The "importance of contributions" to the list? One unconfirmed prediction first posted to the list? Or one discovery of new species announced on the list? And the "references and recommendations" in other sources? A mention among many mailing lists in "Indian Birds", or a mention in "List of India-related websites" by an individual? Other references merely mention the list once "In a discussion on the Internet, members of the NATHISTORY mailing list, set up to discuss India's eco-diversity and wealth, stressed that this decision would protect...", "On the listserve nathistory-india, at least a couple of dozen people wrote against the bill" etc. utcursch | talk 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added details above showing this is not "notable" except for a few one-liners (and some of the claims are not really what they are claimed to be!). If real, non-trivial references are made, then the list may be notable, but such one liners (or listing someone with an email address matching the site) don't make the list notable in any way, as you suggested. --Ragib 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per T&E. Meets all of our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Per T&E? Same question: Where are the "number of noteworthy predictions"? utcursch | talk 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notable in academic circles is too narrow for me to make it notable. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, noting that invoking systemic bias to explain why there are no sources for something doesn't work. However, that doesn't need to be done here. -Amarkov moo! 00:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, marginally notable. Everyking 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to all including self ! Check oneself for fairness, see whether you are applying the same level of critical examination, application of guidelines and rules for all. Step back and look at the forest instead of the trees. Try to be constructive. Delete and keep are not the only alternatives. (references WP:BASH, WP:ATA, WP:GD). Shyamal 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. I reserve the right to retract my vote. I read and re-read WP:WEB. The mailing list is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and may only be acceptable as part of a broader entry in a new posting, such as Natural History of South Asia. Bluestripe 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC) There is no doubt that the Natural History of South Asia is an important and notable subject. Perhaps it is not the mailing list that is as important as the group and what the group does. Answering the questions -- What the group is? -- as well as -- What the group does? -- will make this entry stronger. The mailing list can be worked in as the means for communicating ideas on the Natural History of South Asia. It does meet our criteria for insertion. This is an example of an entry requiring improvement rather than deletion. If given a chance, the subject is encyclopedic because it is helping define a branch of knowledge that, although of primary relevenace to the academic community, is relevant to the rest of us in the context of an encyclopedia. See: Policies_and_guidelines. Bluestripe 14:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed Natural History of South Asia is an important subject. But the discussion here is about "Natural History of South Asia mailing list". How does it meet "our criteria for insertion", simply because it "can be worked in as the means for communicating ideas on the Natural History of South Asia"? utcursch | talk 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If given a chance, the subject is encyclopedic because it is helping define a branch of knowledge that, although of primary relevenace to the academic community, is relevant to the rest of us in the contect of an encyclopedia. Both the mailing list and its subject are relevant and noteworthy. Bluestripe 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read up at WP:WEB Blue. Cheers Lethaniol 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Shyamal has suggested, the article content can be incorporated in a new article (probably Natural History of South Asia). Just because a mailing list is discussing an important subject, it doesn't become notable enough to deserve an article. utcursch | talk 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Following three comments have been copied and posted from my talk page as most part of them deals with this debate and are my answer to Bluestripe. Thanks Atulsnischal 13:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Two things. First, I would feel more comfortable if you maintained a user page. The idea of the red link to nowhere is disconcerting. Second, it is the Natural History of South Asia that is encyclopedic; not the mailing list addressing same. The mailing list might be included in a broader article that deals with the Natural History of South Asia. Bluestripe 22:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Like you suggested, I wrote a few lines on my user page, instead of leaving it blank or as a redlink, when you get time can you kindly help me Archive my talk page, please do it anytime you get time. Thanks. As for the mailing list I firmly think it is a pioneering example from the region and is hugely notable and hence Encyclopedic :-) Atulsnischal 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I learned about archiving by visiting User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto. Hope this helps. Good luck with your review. Remember, you catch more bees with honey. Bluestripe 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The creator of this page seems to be trying to garner support for their cause by asking for help from other users who have had, or still have their articles up for WP:AFD (e.g. myself and Bluestripe at least) - see . Although this is unlikely to be a problem I thought I should mention it - as users who are most likely to get their articles AFDed are either inclusionists or newer users who may not be as well versed in policy. Cheers Lethaniol 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Atulsnischal has been attracting a lot of users to this page; I don't know whether to call this canvassing or not -- I am not sure about the criteria for choosing talk pages. utcursch | talk 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time Atulnishchal has done this. During the last Afd for this article, he spammed/canvassed many pages as well, and outright demanded at various project/talk pages that other users vote "keep". I notice that he is doing the same for this AFD. --Ragib 15:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi all, just found these people seemed to know the rules for discussing articles for deletion, so just wanted their view too, just picked a few randomly from deletion review page close to first deletion review for this article as utcursch is trying to force a bit too much of his opinion here, his attempts to get this article deleted is turning out to be a personal vendetta to win this debate and Ragib and Aditya Kabir seem to be pals, I have already mentioned in first deletion review that I have a problem with Ragib he has been systematically following the articles I have worked on and undoing changes. Thanks Atulsnischal 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Personal vendetta"? I don't think we've ever crossed ways before this deletion debate. And no, User:Ragib and Aditya are not my pals. In fact, I remember encountering Ragib at only three places: Wikipedia talk:Vernacular scripts (where we had opposite opinions), this debate and WP:INB. And I've never encountered Aditya before this debate. And for the fifth time, I don't have any hatred for this list -- I just don't find it notable enough for a separate article. You might be interested in going through WP:NPA. utcursch | talk 16:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, let me rephrase for all, utcursch wants to come across as a great CowBoy macho WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR, cruising on on his Horse and winning debates by the thousands. No body said you were friends with anybody though. What I said was User:Ragib is friends with Aditya both have given shallow strong deletion votes, both have been collaborating before. As for utcursch there are better things to do then winning debates to become and retain WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR status, "Personal vendetta"? YES to win this debate, you have been going on and on in the first deletion review also, I requested before too to let others participate but your ego is too much, cowboy on a horse type macho EGOAtulsnischal 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Atul. You became quite pissed off with me when I pointed out your canvassing and attempts of vote-stacking in the first AFD. Then you started personal attacks against anyone who votes against you! Please prove that I have asked anyone to vote here, before commenting on whether I'm bringing "pals" here. You, on the other hand, have been active in canvassing in favorable places to stack votes.
 * As for my removal of huge amounts of spam from some articles you have edited, you are free to report that to WP:ANB. I have failed to make you understand that adding 30 external links to a few-paragraphs article is a bad approach, so someone else may have better success there. --Ragib 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Atul, all I can say is that you seriously need to read WP:NPA. My involvement in this debate is result of its listing at WP:DSI, and nothing else. utcursch | talk 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I participated in the DRV, so a notification of a follow-up discussion is not unusual and accepted canvassing. I haven't checked if only one group of DRV participants was canvassed, and if, the others should be informed as well. ~ trialsanderrors 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not think this meets WP:WEB as said above the content and persons involved in of course notable, but the mailing list in itself is not. In fact I find it hard to imagine any mailing list being encyclopaedic (though there likely is). Cheers Lethaniol 14:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable and cleaned upRaveenS 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think the onus of proof is on those who'd like it deleted, and I don't think a case has been made in terms of WP:WEB or WP:NOT or other relevant guidelines and policies. Andrewa 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, many of the keep votes have been solicited by, as seen by the messages left on the talk pages of the users. This sort of canvassing is just a way to subvert the afd. --Ragib 06:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, I have explained myself above already. Also please reread canvassing, Thankyou Atulsnischal 12:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Hi Ragib you like to give me many friendly advices right, here is one for you as per WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a battleground" for taking out personal grudges against people. Hope to remain friends with you :) Atulsnischal 13:03, 21 March 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.