Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramayana sites in Sri Lanka

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 speedy deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs); reason was "Speedy deleted per CSD G12, was an unambiguous copyright infringement." Non-admin closure by nom. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayana sites in Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article that reads like a travel guide/advertisement targeted at Hindus making a pilgrimage to Sri Lanka. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could be written into a decent sourced article, much like Buddhism in Himachal Pradesh. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to that approach and am willing to withdraw this AfD if it is improved during the AfD discussion period. Otherwise I think the best thing to do here is blow it up and start over. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask Nvvchar or Redtiger who are good with Hindu sites or Chanakal. I think it has potential.. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 16:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 17:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 17:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a WP:COPYVIO. Much of the article is a cut and paste job from this tourism website. For example, the section Tunnel net work is identical to this page and Sita gooli is taken verbatim from this page. I'm not sure just how extensive the cutting and pasting is/was, but blowing the whole thing up seems like the best course of action. Unless someone's up for doing a complete overhaul on the double. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a delete and then start from scratch then if somebody is interested in doing so? I think it has potential, but copy vios must be deleted from the system anyway..

Yes the entire article is a copy vio. This is now speediable. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 01:23, 6 February 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.