Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panniwala Ruldu
- 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. Sandstein 16:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Panniwala Ruldu
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Panniwala Ruldu (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 sources; poorly formatted. Only way I see it staying is due to it being a village.
talk) 16:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the talk) 16:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)]
If it can be verified through at least one reliable source, not confusing with other village; then it should not be deleted. But if it cant verified, or we cant be sure of that particular "Panniwala Ruldu"; then it should be deleted. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)]
- The source that I added to the article before my previous comment, which is cast-iron reliable, verifies the existence of this village in this block in this district. I don't know what further evidence you need. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)]
- I was talking in general Phil]
I apologise for the misunderstanding.
I hadnt run a search/verification for the article by then. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- I was talking in general
- Keep - the sourcing by Phil is somewhat...proxy-like, but I'm inclined to accept its reliability, and thus GEOLAND is met. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: what does it mean by proxy in this context? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran: in that the source (afaict quickly) isn't about the village itself (but a school there, I think). However it's location is thus established by a reliable source. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: what does it mean by proxy in this context? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- keep: passes WP:GEOLAND as a village that can be verified per Phil's comment above. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)]
- Also, I suggest/request @WP:GEOLAND. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)]
- Also, I suggest/request @
- Comment – The village clearly exists, and the relevant details can be found at here (archive link: [1]) or at page nos. 66–71 of this District Census Handbook.
- PS: Details regarding Indian villages are easily available at the official website of 2011 Census of India, i.e. at censusindia.gov.in. One can directly search any village at here, or can download the relevant District Census Handbook from here (by clicking on the relevant link under Part-B-ebook(CRC)). - NitinMlk (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)]
- Keep. Exactly. It's a village! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep WP:GEOLAND. William2001(talk) 05:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)]
- 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.