Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paigah (Hyderabad)

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 and revert to this version to remove possible copyright violations. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paigah (Hyderabad)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a copyright violation. In addition, it doesn't cite any sources, nor does it make any assertions of notability. Yes, in theory, this article could be cleaned up to clear those concerns. In practice, though, this article is 75k of unsourced, possibly copyright violating text. I think it'd be much easier to start from scratch. Quanticle (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the claims asserted in the intro are accurate, it looks notable enough to me, tho the usefulness of a lengthy family tree/genealogy seems is debatable (I'd say not much if any in its current state). The copyvio connection is because of [1] I believe. The copyright asserted is 2004-2011, so it would be predating this article being made on wikipedia, but archive.org has no data for royalark.net before 2008. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incomprehensible, unsourced mishmash naming and giving personal details of what appears to be scores of BLPs, including, presumably, minor children (it's hard to discern in the textdump, but all children of, uh, everyone, of every age, appear to be listed). The only non-deletion option that I see here is stubbing the article down to just the (unreferenced) lede, but I lean slightly to deletion being the better option. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but revert to this version. The topic itself seems to be notable, but the recent contributions have made the article incomprehensible. utcursch | talk 10:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert per User:Utcursch. We certainly don't need 78 kilobytes of genealogy describing every member of the family, whether notable or not. JIP | Talk 05:55, 26 December 2011 (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.