Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddharam
From 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 Speedy Delete as a copyvio. no non-infringing version in history to revert to. Resolute 19:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Siddharam[edit]
- Siddharam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non notable, possible original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are sources available [1]. Rather than tag for deletion, roll your sleeves and do some research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The onus on providing references belongs to the article's creator and to anyone who wants to take on the task. It does not fall upon other editors and the advise to "roll your sleeves and do some research" is highly inappropriate in this context. Not only has the creator of this article failed to provide references, the article is thoroughly unwikified -- a combination which I feel indicates at best disinterest and/or disrespect for the culture of Wikipedia and the efforts of other editors. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tagged this article for speedy deletion as a blatant db-copyvio of this site. S. Dean Jameson 18:42, 12 July 2008 (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.