Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goad

Appears to be almost entirely OR. Violates WP:OR. The links provided do not meet WP:V Listerin 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I don't like deleting things because I've never heard of them. I see nothing in the article that might suggest it is a hoax, either. Also, you know the saying "Goading someone on"? (As if to prod or poke someone) Also check this out [1] AdamBiswanger1 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have restored the earlier contents as they existed before the "original research", if any. Anyone interested to have a scanned copy of the page from the book I have referred in this stub, are most welcome to send me a wiki-mail. I shall send they by way of e-mail attachemnt, a scanned copy of the relevant page from the book. --Bhadani 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Bhadani's edits belong at Ankus, not at Goad. Goads have a long history in agricultural societies; I have no doubt a good, non-OR article on the history of their use can be written. User:Angr 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree. Your revert was fine. --Bhadani 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Why the f*ck does anyone want to delete this? It does not make sense.Barbara Shack 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to be civil and don't bite the nominator of this article. AdamBiswanger1 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put Hindu stuff in here, that should have been put in Ankus. It has now been put in Ankus. Keep. OR = Original Research, but there is nothing to research about the common ox-goad which farmers have been using for thousands of years. Anthony Appleyard 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does need an {{unreferenced}} template though. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]