Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilshad Garden
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 No consensus. No consensus to delete, but also no demonstration of notability.Kubigula (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dilshad Garden[edit]
- Dilshad Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be non-notable--if anything, the article is a listing of things found there, a listing that smacks of promotion. Google News provides nothing but mentions as a locale, and Google Books provides nothing but hits for the place as part of business and other addresses. Article has been tagged for an eternity. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - When I do a google search I come up with an officially designated district of New Delhi,[1] even with two of its own Delhi Metro stations. [2] --Oakshade (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Failure to have other articles on equally notable places in en.wikipedia is not a reason for deletion. En.wikipedia is notoriously deficient in India topics, particularly geographic. Pseudofusulina (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly true, and WP:BIAS is a very real problem. The best way to solve that however is to help us out by finding proper sourcing which is harder to find for those who don't speak the language (like me). The arguments it's notable because it just is, or it's notable because we have too little India topics just doesn't hold. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider that a good counterargument to a deletion discussion based the nominator thinking an article "appears" to not be notable and has had tags for a long time. If not, show me the policy list of proper counter-arguments to "I think it doesn't look notable," and "tagged for an eternity." Pseudofusulina (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly true, and WP:BIAS is a very real problem. The best way to solve that however is to help us out by finding proper sourcing which is harder to find for those who don't speak the language (like me). The arguments it's notable because it just is, or it's notable because we have too little India topics just doesn't hold. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2012 (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.