Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deh Mandro

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.

Deh Mandro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No coverage in reliable sources. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 09:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Covered in several refs. It also appears to be a geographical location, which makes it notable by default per
  WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - per Mar4d. Its also mentioned in the 1998 Census - Mfarazbaig (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (unless significantly improved) In its current form the article makes an extremely weak case for notability. Regarding Mfarazbaig's comment, the point of a census is to capture everything within a region under investigation - so something being mentioned in a census only states that it exists. Not every geographical location on earth is notable. It needs reliable, independent sources (cited inline) in order to establish that this is an important, notable place that needs to be included in an encyclopedia. Famous_dog (c) 08:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (unless significantly improved. I agree with Famousdog above. I've no idea whether this station is even still operational as it might have been superceded. Pity there's no "List of Satellite Ground Stations" article although there is a partial list in
  -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Should we make a list? L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While the article does need major improvement, that is not a justification in deletion discussions. The sources in the article and above at least seem to establish a baseline notability.
  talk) 00:19, 28 August 2017 (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.