Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAVE Bandra Crosses


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

SAVE Bandra Crosses

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. The author then added sections of content to the article, which I removed as they were a number of blatant copyright violations of various articles. Now the article is back to being a call-to-action with no encyclopedic content. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There is probably a worthy cause involved, but with no notability shown. There is a campaign, as http://news.inmumbai.org/2011/02/28/bmc-stays-demolition-of-bandra-crosses-for-4-days/ demonstrates. Looks like the City Council were requiring reliable sources (but not WP:RS for the age of these crosses. For more background, see http://www.inbandra.com/civic-listing-details.php?id=39 As the article stands, WP:SOAPBOX comes in. Personally, I can't see why they don't just move the things. Probably too simple. Peridon (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. 1. This page is 90% a religious screed, which does not belong on Wikipedia. Only one sentence refers to the subject of the article, which is to "save Bandra Crosses." 2. If the crosses are notable, there should be an article on these crosses–which there is not—and the campaign to save the crosses would be mentioned on that page. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX. While an encyclopedic article about the crosses themselves might be written, this isn't it. Notability for the campaign to save the crosses is not established. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This article violates so many things, so many in fact that I'm not sure why it wasn't speedied.Aquabanianskakid (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The closest speedy criteria I can think of would be "Unclear subject", but it clearly refers to crosses in a specific area. Certainly needs to be deleted though, as there is no notability whatsoever in this unencyclopedic topic. An article on the crosses themselves might, might be warranted, if they had some sort of notability - but nothing I'm seeing is evidence of that. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:26, 6 April 2011 (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.