Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhantoli

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) czar · · 20:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhantoli

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

Article makes no claim to notability other than it being "the best". No secondary source for the first paragraph and the only source appears undue. Andrew³²⁷ 20:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhantoli is a medical hub of central india. it is a genuine claim to notability. I have a source. The rest is written in a neutral point of view. Drbkmurali (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC) The wiki pages of the prominent personalities does show that Dhantoli is the place from where they come from or still reside!Since Wikipedia does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, there is no need to restrict content in the same way that a paper encyclopedia does. Usually the AFD discussion takes up the same or greater amount of disk space than the article. No performance problems result from having many articles . Inclusionists (see Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia)claim that authors should take a more open-minded look at content criteria. Articles on people, places, and concepts of little note may be perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia in this view. Some inclusionists do not see a problem with including pages which give a factual description of every person on Earth.I feel that since the original article sources are reliable, and independent of the subject, they should be reverted!I think the article can be improved upon rather than deleting it!Drbkmurali (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles added from the Times of India only mention this place in passing. The general notability guideline mandates significant coverage, and this neighborhood clearly lacks that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree.Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The title of the articles and the content are primarily about the issues concerning hospitals in Dhantoli.It is a significant coverage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbkmurali (talk • contribs) 08:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That the articles are about hospitals and not the neighborhood itself proves that the coverage isn't significant per WP:Notability. Thank you for helping me to prove my own point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is worthy of notice because the neighbourhood is a medical hub of central India. If this isn't significant per WP:Notability, then what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redasabeet (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof that it is a significant medical hub in India, though. As the nom pointed out, three articles from the Times of India aren't significant coverage and can't support the claim that this neighborhood is known as a medical hub - if it were, then proving it would be easy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether this is a medical hub or not is irrelevant. There is plenty of evidence that this is a recognised subdivision of a major city, so should be kept per our standard practice for populated places. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason as Phil Bridger's. However, the article needs significant improvement. It would be useful to cite sources such the 2011 Census and an administrative body (the state government, the municipal corporation, and the like). The Maharashtra state gazette and the Nagpur district gazette are likely to have vast and reliable reference material on Dhantoli. Rohini (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the article, it's hard to tell if this a neighborhood, a village, or a hospital complex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger, I'm sure we can find more sources for it, if we dig in a little deeper. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't have to dig too deep, but this is the from the first pge of Google when I search for Dhantoli: 1, 2, 3, and 4. I'm pretty sure, this will be more than useful to back up somethings in the article. :). Cheerio, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have addded a few references and an image to the article, although i have a strong feeling that this article was created primarily to support this article. Trinidade (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons outlined by Phil Bridger. But remove the section on the medical hub, agree with Trinidade, it does appear to have been created to support the Hope Hospitals article. I am also detecting the whiff of sock. LGA _talk^edits 22:16, 27 April 2013 (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.