- 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. Consensus was that the article should be kept per WP:GEOLAND and that AfDs are not a substitute to article improvements. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishandot (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)
- Non-notable village unsupported by references. Article is peacock and original research beyond repair with any attempts at salvage or highlighting reverted by what appears to be sock puppets. PRehse (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know that this article is not perfect but I told you that I am working to improve it. I will imply my improvements soon but it is not fair to delete anyone's article on personal problems. PRehse If you have any conflict with me, Talk with me! we can negotiate it. Atizaz Kiyani (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC) vote from sockpuppeteer struck WOPR (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck your second keep, you are only entitled to !vote once. You are also not entitled to close this discussion, please do not try to do that again. The article requires far more than minor edits. Large swathes have been repeatedly removed and reinserted (by you) which are entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 15:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Andrew D. said, Villages are notable per WP:GEOLAND. The issue are no as serious as to delete someone's effort. Everyone is volunteer here and tone of every author is different so you cannot criticize on anyone's writing skill and except Administrator, No one can decide fate of any article. So, This article should be kept. Shidag 17:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet post (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani) SpinningSpark 17:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added alot of new citations and references as well as sources to verify the source of this article Bishandot. From now on, anyone can edit Bishandot with relevant information and no one is allowed to revert it without a serious cause. Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC) comment from sockpuppeteer struck WOPR (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've refactored your post into a more conventional form (ie, new posts to the bottom rather than inserted in the nomination statement). Please read WP:OWN. You cannot tell other editors what they can do with the article. SpinningSpark 11:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very Much Spinningspark for your help. I have improved Bishandot very much. You can check and kindly inform me with your response.Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC) comment from sockpuppeteer struck WOPR (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2018 (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.