Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boraj Tanwaran

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 delete. Largely WP:V/WP:RS concerns, with a reliable source, notability would generally be presumed. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boraj Tanwaran[edit]

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

Partially translated (very badly) from an unknown source, there is zero value to this is at it currently stands, and improvement does not seem likely or indeed possible. Recommend using WP:TNT on this so that a fresh start can be had Jac16888 ^Talk 11:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the main location referenced in article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salumbar and is on Google maps at https://www.google.com/maps/place/London/@24.1336032,74.0348937,12z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d8a00baf21de75:0x52963a5addd52a99?hl=en . I could not find Boraj Tanwaran on the map. A google search on "Boraj Tanwaran" gives the Wikipedia page as top result dispite the fact that the page was created 18th June. Page seems to relate to https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%9C_%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%81%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8 This page has been up since, well, today. Dispite the obvious glaring problems I think an immediate deletion proposal is a bit rough without giving guidance and pointers on the talk page. There's a chance they may get their act together and present something notable but agree "there is there is zero value to this is at it currently stands". Gregkaye (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this page has received multiple notifications of various issues on their talk page, and replaced them all with the same content as this article with no indication that they are reading or understanding what they are being told. The page on the Hindi Wikipedia was created by the same editor as this one--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that the content is unfixable, because "Boraj Tanwaran is a small village in Salumbar tehsil, Rajasthan, India" would be a perfectly good stub. But I find no usable sources for it in English and none in Hindi. (I didn't try Rajasthani, since I don't have a source for its spelling in Rajasthani.) Therefore, it appears to fall short of WP:NGEOG and WP:GNG. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hindi Wikipedia page is in a deletion discussion, but that is a more extensive article, and the initiator of the discussion claimed it was promotional, though based on the text as translated by Google I don't see how. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Hindi wikipedia discussion claimed was promotional because there are no source for the article and we don't have sufficient tools to check it. If a article name and article creator's names are same, so it claimed as promotional. In real promotional it can't go for discussion and we directly use speed deletion process. On Hindi wikipedia there is one more reason for discussion which is this discussion is going on. If enwiki page will became good then we will also translate the correspond materiel. So, please don't depend on hiwiki for this page.

I tried Rajasthani also and couldn't found source for the page, That's why I nominated the Hindi page for deletion.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation of article if a reliable source for the village's existence can be found. At present there seems to be no such source. PamD 15:18, 2 July 2014 (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.