Portal:India/Selected article removal candidates/archive
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This is an archive of old nominations for Selected Article Removal Candidates for Portal:India.
Result:Remove
edit| | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
The article clearly does not meet Selected Articles criteria 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and probably 5. It's ridiculous to have such an article as India Selected Article. Please Comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per nom. Lacks basic content and will probably even fail GA in a heartbeat. AreJay 14:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove not good for the Portal to have articles so inaqequate featuring as India's best articles. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove' as doesn't fit the criteria. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've modified the article a bit, but I think its still a Remove. -- thunderboltz(TALK) 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The article clearly does not meet Selected Articles criterion 2(c) (no reference or inline citation) and criterion 3(a) (lackes a concise lead). Also there are doubts over Criteria 3(b) (proper hierarchical headings). It is questionable how this article got selected in the first place. The article does not seem to have gone through a selection process. In that case, the director of India Selected article portal should take responsibility that undeserving articles do not get selected just on the basis of importance of the topic (as it seems in this case). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove: pretty bad show as well. We have to be more selective in our SA process. AreJay 14:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per Dwaipayanc. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per Dwaipayanc. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep.Looks like a good article to me. Bharatveer 10:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
| | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Nice article but not India related. --hydkat 06:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- remove --hydkat 06:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- remove - There are many other articles too, like Dinosaur, DNA repair, etc, which are totally unrelated to India. How did they get there in the first place?
-- thunderboltz(TALK) 06:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC) - speedy remove --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
| | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Despite being an FA, it does not meet the criteria to be an India Selected Article as the article is not related to India, even in the wildest of imaginations. This article should be removed from the India Selected Article list ASAP. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy remove all food This is just one. There is also Black pepper, Butter, Cheese, Coca-Cola. Per nom of course. I find it very funny that these have been selected! GizzaChat © 11:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- remove Maybe they reflect that we indian are mighty food lovers (I know I like cheese!) --hydkat 12:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove all food related per Gizza. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
| | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
It was someone's idea of a bad joke to make this a selected articl. Obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with India. Another of those selected Indian articles having no relation to India. Were these added by vandals? Loom91 12:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove at once.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Remove.--Quite obviously a bad prank.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
| | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Note that before I did this I changed Criteria 1 to include the fact that the work has to be India-related. This article is a pretty good article, that is why it's a Featured Article. But not once does it mention India nor does it go into detail about any sort of graffiti in the South Asian Subcontinent. I think this deserves speedy removal seeing as it's not even related to India. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. Yes, the article is not at all related to India. Being related to India should be the first criteria for being Indian SA. In fact, there are some more articles in India SA list that are excellent, even FAs, but hardly related to India.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per nom. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove along with Coca-Cola, Cheese, Black pepper, Butter, Windows XP, Mozilla Firefox, Java programming language, GNU/Linux naming controversy, C programming language, Diamond, Frog, DNA repair, Dinosaur, Cat, Blue Whale, Asthma, Aquarium, AIDS, etc. —jiy (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- We can't nominate them all but they all deserve to go, how about a speedy removal. I'll talk to AreJay. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)