Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adhyapaknagar

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 discussion and !votes evenly balanced after relist x2. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adhyapaknagar

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

No clear relevance or reason for an article, especially one which is as poorly written as the one in existence. A major overhaul would be required to turn the existing article into suitable encyclopaedic content. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a place where people live, then it should be kept as per WP:NPLACE. The content is poor, but one would think there are official documents which would give the bare minimum of information about it as a place. So keep, providing someone can be bothered to WP:TNT. JMWt (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Human settlements are notable if they can be verified. Despite the claim in the article, Census of India has no record of this place for the 2011 census. However, search for Adhyapak Nagar does bring up a post office and coordinates in Google Maps. Not much to work with. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a neighborhood in New Delhi, but not a notable place, and very little information to put in an article. Not in the 2011 census is a strong indicator that it is not a village.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously needs drastic improvement but per WP:NGEO all legally recognised, populated places are presumed to be notable. Google maps apparently lists this neighbourhood as "Adhyapak Nagar" with a space. AusLondonder (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I have moved this to Adhyapak Nagar, which probably should have been already been done. I have also begun a cleanup and requested assistance from editors at WP:India AusLondonder (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nangloi Jat. This is not a census town (as earlier claimed in the article), so WP:NGEO does not apply. It's a small neighbourhood in the Nangloi Jat census town. utcursch | talk 20:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the suggestion to redirect to Nangloi Jat, as we have no sourcing to fill out this article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only "census towns" are notable. Per WP:NGEO "all legally recognised, populated places are presumed to be notable" AusLondonder (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Completely agree with AusLondonder. The article is notable as per WP:NGEO, but still it require improvement. Being poorly written or improperly formatted doesn't grant deletion of the article from the Wikipedia. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I agree with AusLondoner's assessment of WP:NGEO, not sure why they feel that this particular place meets that requirement. I can find nothing which shows that it is a "legally recognized" place. At best, it appears it might be a neighborhood, but not all neighborhoods are automatically notable, they have to pass WP:GNG, and this one does not appear to. If someone has a link to show that this is a legally recognized place than please ping me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 00:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like it's notable, though the article needs more work. That's not a reason to delete it though.Bruriyah (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even have one cite, can't even meet WP:V in any meaningful way, though I believe it does exist.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Utcursch's suggestion above. It's probably a name that's used locally, but the paucity of reliable sources, even if they're mere directory entries, would indicate that this is not a place notable enough to justify a standalone article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect instead perhaps as this certainly is not confidently solid for independent notability but this can be redirected instead. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 23 April 2016 (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.