- 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. Stifle ( talk) 15:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sandrembi Chaisra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
to which AFreshStart objected on the basis that Sandrembi Chaisra is not mentioned there.Doesn't seem to meet GNG and is very confusingly written, redirecting to Meetei folklore which mentions the story
Courtesy pings to all RfD !voters: @ Lenticel, Aervanath, Uanfala, SnowFire, and Mdewman6: -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep but clean up. It was quite correct that this was sent here instead of surreptitiously deleted-by-redirect, but (1) AfD is not clean-up, and (2) things should be deleted if it is likely that there will be no sources, or if they are so, so dreadful that an absolutely fresh start is necessary. In this case sources are likely to be available (based on its presence in [1] and [2]), and although the article is in dire need of good writing, it's not totally irredeemable. The character-list, info-box and popular-culture sections are a good start; what it really needs is a comprehensible, coherent plot-summary and some better referencing. Elemimele ( talk) 12:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment would a transwiki from the simple wikipedia version suffice? -- Lenticel ( talk) 12:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Import from Simple English Wikipedia. It will still need to be cleaned up (and the story section pared down, I think), but it's much better than our current version, and with MUCH better sources.-- Aervanath ( talk) 16:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, unless someone writes it up from scratch. The article has serious sourcing and comprehensibility issues, and it was written by
a sockfarm known for POV. The article on simple wiki seems in a much better shape, but it was written by the same sockpuppets after they got blocked here, so this means: 1) if the article is imported it will be eligible for
WP:G5 speedy deletion, 2) the doubts around sourcing and neutrality will remain. If the topic is notable (and that's what we're supposed to be finding out here), then we're better off creating the article from scratch. –
Uanfala (talk)
17:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- the simple version might have been written by a sock, but it's a decent article; we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we deleted it because of its authorship. We have the right to delete the products of socks, but not the obligation. If anyone doubts its neutrality, we have tags for that sort of thing.
Elemimele (
talk)
21:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Of course. But the relevant point here is not that the article was created by a sock, the point is that it was created by a sock with content issues. If another wikipedian is willing to take ownership of that article – if they're willing to check for copyright violations and then examine the sources to see if it doesn't misrepresent them in some subtle way – then absolutely, let's import it here. But it's not enough if it just looks "decent". – Uanfala (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- the simple version might have been written by a sock, but it's a decent article; we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we deleted it because of its authorship. We have the right to delete the products of socks, but not the obligation. If anyone doubts its neutrality, we have tags for that sort of thing.
Elemimele (
talk)
21:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT there is nothing here that is worth saving under any ATD nor anything that is comprehensible in English. If there is such a "myth element", there are no sources available in the article or in searches that demonstrate such exists. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 30 January 2022 (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.
- 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. Stifle ( talk) 15:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sandrembi Chaisra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
to which AFreshStart objected on the basis that Sandrembi Chaisra is not mentioned there.Doesn't seem to meet GNG and is very confusingly written, redirecting to Meetei folklore which mentions the story
Courtesy pings to all RfD !voters: @ Lenticel, Aervanath, Uanfala, SnowFire, and Mdewman6: -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep but clean up. It was quite correct that this was sent here instead of surreptitiously deleted-by-redirect, but (1) AfD is not clean-up, and (2) things should be deleted if it is likely that there will be no sources, or if they are so, so dreadful that an absolutely fresh start is necessary. In this case sources are likely to be available (based on its presence in [1] and [2]), and although the article is in dire need of good writing, it's not totally irredeemable. The character-list, info-box and popular-culture sections are a good start; what it really needs is a comprehensible, coherent plot-summary and some better referencing. Elemimele ( talk) 12:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment would a transwiki from the simple wikipedia version suffice? -- Lenticel ( talk) 12:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Import from Simple English Wikipedia. It will still need to be cleaned up (and the story section pared down, I think), but it's much better than our current version, and with MUCH better sources.-- Aervanath ( talk) 16:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, unless someone writes it up from scratch. The article has serious sourcing and comprehensibility issues, and it was written by
a sockfarm known for POV. The article on simple wiki seems in a much better shape, but it was written by the same sockpuppets after they got blocked here, so this means: 1) if the article is imported it will be eligible for
WP:G5 speedy deletion, 2) the doubts around sourcing and neutrality will remain. If the topic is notable (and that's what we're supposed to be finding out here), then we're better off creating the article from scratch. –
Uanfala (talk)
17:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- the simple version might have been written by a sock, but it's a decent article; we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we deleted it because of its authorship. We have the right to delete the products of socks, but not the obligation. If anyone doubts its neutrality, we have tags for that sort of thing.
Elemimele (
talk)
21:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Of course. But the relevant point here is not that the article was created by a sock, the point is that it was created by a sock with content issues. If another wikipedian is willing to take ownership of that article – if they're willing to check for copyright violations and then examine the sources to see if it doesn't misrepresent them in some subtle way – then absolutely, let's import it here. But it's not enough if it just looks "decent". – Uanfala (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- the simple version might have been written by a sock, but it's a decent article; we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we deleted it because of its authorship. We have the right to delete the products of socks, but not the obligation. If anyone doubts its neutrality, we have tags for that sort of thing.
Elemimele (
talk)
21:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT there is nothing here that is worth saving under any ATD nor anything that is comprehensible in English. If there is such a "myth element", there are no sources available in the article or in searches that demonstrate such exists. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 30 January 2022 (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.