Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kot Najeebullah
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kot Najeebullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content fork/duplicate of Kot Najibullah. I do not think a redirect is in order due to this, but if more experienced editors advocate redirection I would understand. Tiderolls 07:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC) l[reply]
- This is obviously a redirect/merge, because the Kot Najeebullah article actually has a source (and a Government one at that also being an administrative subdivision) - compared to the other one which doesn't. The same place can sometime be transliterated in slightly different ways in English (I usually notice them this time not). But to argue for the deletion of an article on the above grounds is absurd. Pahari Sahib 08:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If by merge you mean add the the link to Kot Najibullah, I would say that sounds like a good idea. I would have said the same two weeks ago when I asked for your opinion. Regards Tiderolls 11:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I have been very busy of late, some things precedence over editing Wiki - are you saying you only nominated because I failed to respond - hmmm.Pahari Sahib 10:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If by merge you mean add the the link to Kot Najibullah, I would say that sounds like a good idea. I would have said the same two weeks ago when I asked for your opinion. Regards Tiderolls 11:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reason for nominating the article is stated in the nomination. Of course real life concerns take precedence over Wikipedia editing. I raised the subject of my post on your talk page to counter your characterization of my nomination as “absurd”. My comment was in no way meant to cast your lack of response in any unfavorable light; I simply wanted to illustrate that I had sought other courses of action before nominating the article. Regards Tiderolls 15:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as uncontested prod. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.