Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Race of My Life


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Race of My Life

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The book fails WP:NBOOK. I and User:Sitush have tried redirecting it to the subject of the book, Milkha Singh. But some IPs keep reverting it. Hence requesting deletion or redirection and salting/locking. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete & Salt as per nomination.  C ute st Penguin discuss 13:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This request should have been made at WP:RPP. Vandalism is not a grounds for deletion. James500 (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum Nomination states that there is a history of an attempt by the nominator to redirect this article for non-notability, but there is no consensus for that view, and that the lack of consensus is the reason for the attempted deletion.  This is a dispute that can be resolved without admin tools.  As stated at WP:BEFORE C1, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."  As per WP:Deletion policy, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The nomination says there is attempt by nominator plus one other editor too in redirecting it rather than going through the lengthy procedures of AfD which probably might result in redirect. Plus, the redirecting in the nomination is just an option. Participants at Afd can very well form a consensus to delete it and not even redirect it especially given the history of promotional re-creations. So i don't think its a wrong forum. Btw, your opinion, other than it being the wrong forum, is not clear to me. Are you saying it should be deleted or redirected or kept-and-edited or what? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As per, this article has never been deleted, so it has never been re-created. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your position seems clear to me that you think that the issues here can be resolved with normal editing. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion on the talk page, which is also mentioned in WP:BEFORE. I see no argument in the edit history, either, that suggests that the article should be deleted.  IMO, this dispute does not need to bind the time of AfD volunteers.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that there are uncivil comments in the edit history. I support an incivility block for .  This is not a reason to take an article to AfD, especially as it makes it appear that retaliation is a component of the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Stating that my opinion is not clear to you and asking whether or not I think this topic should be deleted is not a well-considered question, as I have already stated that this is a dispute that can be resolved without admin tools. I have also quoted from WP:BEFORE as follows: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."  I have also quoted from deletion policy, as follows: "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."  Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Articles are not created only after they are deleted. An article can be created from a redirect also, which has happened here twice, which in English would be called re-creation. What normal editing? If the topic fails WP:NBOOKS, howmuchsoever abnormal editing would also not make it notable. I never nominated it because some IP used abusive language. Its you presuming that. Yes, there is content dispute here in the way that i believe there should be no content in it. And re-read what i wrote. I didn't ask you only if your opinion is to delete it or not. I also asked if should be kept. That's giving all possible options. And lastly, WP is not compulsory. So you can very well choose to save your time and eventually of others too by not making them read all this. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 09:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are replying to my !vote. If you didn't want others reading my reply to your reply, I don't know why you would start asking questions.  You can also withdraw the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Introducing the concept of "abnormal editing" makes no sense to me, as "normal editing" is a term quoted from WP:BEFORE, and means editing that can be done without admin tools including redirecting and reverting a redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was aware that you listed options other than delete. The fact that I didn't explicitly mention those other options does not mean that I didn't respond.  Please see the statement, "IMO, this dispute does not need to bind the time of AfD volunteers."  I hope my position is now clear.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, your position is still not clear but its clear its not worth clearing either. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, the book is notable on its own:, , , etc. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources presented by Vejvančický, this seems to cut the mustard for WP:BKCRIT #1. Roberticus  talk  13:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I too find the sources above convincing as far as notability via GNG. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to be improved in terms of references and coverage in reliable sources. &#8212;  C ute st Penguin Hangout 16:48, 1 October 2014 (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.