Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarauti Arwal

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarauti[edit]

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

Since my PROD tag has been removed without the autho addressing my concerns: Basically the article is made for personal reasons, even noting his/her family as notable people in that area, conflict of interest. also making personal statement such as cute temple, etc. would tag it for speedy delete but I don't know which category. SefBau : msg 14:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update - The article's been fixed now, I'm just not sure now if the information written there is accurate and enough. If it is enough then I withdraw my nomination. SefBau : msg 17:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, your these concerns have not been fixed still. --Tito☸Dutta 21:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I tried to fix this article the repeated spam is sufficient to convince me Wikipedia will be better not having this article. SL 7968 11:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any article for a reasonably sized settlement is inherently notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Solomon, I've also tried to clean this up, but the creator just keeps putting back the same spammy junk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it appears to be a real place. If being a magnet for spam and POV were a reason for deletion, are we going to get rid of Barack Obama or George W. Bush next? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a village with a population of over 3,000 people. Wikipedia's core policies state that it incorporates features of a gazetteer including this type of information. Though the article is unreferenced at this time, it has included what appears to be census data since the beginning. The fact that the new editor who created the article is not familiar with our policies is not a reason to delete the article. It is a reason to improve it, and that process has begun. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I added a ref but the article creator removed it. (see page history). SL 7968 18:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reference back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Populated places like this are easily notable, even if the author of the page didn't know what he was doing. T C N7JM 19:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only is it a populated place which demonstrates inherent notability, but it's a district headquarters, similar to a county seat in the US or a county town in the UK.--Oakshade (talk) 03:15, 30 August 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.