Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sega jagatpur

: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 keep. A verifiable consensus settlement, village. Legally recognised. WP:GEOLAND applies. If there are issues in article content, kindly update it. AfD is not cleanup. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

=[[:Sega jagatpur]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Sega jagatpur}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sega_jagatpur Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Sega jagatpur}})

This article is so poorly written and has no sources. SacredDragonX (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable".----Pontificalibus 09:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that an article is poorly written alone is not enough to delete the article. This article passes WP:GEOLAND. William2001(talk) 16:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The argument of "This article is so poorly written" does not hold water in an AfD discussion. While the article has no sources, it is most certainly a location that exists and protected under WP:GEOLAND, as the users have stated above me. Utopes (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The user who nominated the article for deletion approached me regarding withdrawing the AfD immediately after making the nomination. I'm not sure why they didn't follow through with the withdrawal but this may have been done mistakenly or in error. Kosack (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Harshil want to talk? 04:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

::What exactly is the rationale "per nom" that is a reason for deletion?Oakshade (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - The nom has only stated reasons for article clean-up, not deletion. Verified populated place.Oakshade (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.