Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charakonda

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. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 10:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charakonda[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I do not understand this. Has no sources. Is it a business park, or a town? What are they fighting for? » Shadowowl | talk 20:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I have figured out the cause of the confusion.
1. There used to be a Charakonda village in the Vangoor mandal in the Mahbubnagar district of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh (see 2011 census report for district)
2. Then in 2014, the Andhra Pradesh state got split, creating a new state of Telangana. And more recently, in 2017, the districts in Telangana got [completely revamped (which means all pre-2017 sources became pretty much useless as far as administrative division information goes).
3. Now, there is a Charakonda mandal in the Nagarkurnool District in the Indian state of Telangana (see District website, which I expect to be the most up-to-date source)
4. To add somewhat to the confusion the Charakonda mandal itself contains a Charakonda village, which possibly corresponds to the village listed in point (1)

Now, even if the above is a convincing story to us, we cannot write it up in mainspace without running into WP:SYNTH issues. So I suggest we just have a one-two line article based on point (3), and drop a note on the talk page that editors should ignore any pre-2017 sources since even if they are otherwise reliable, they may not reflect the current situation. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Updated article based on above information. Since the district sub-division is verifiable, it should be a non-controversial keep per WP:NGEO. @Shadowowl: if you agree would you like to withdraw the nomination? Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2018 (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.