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The result was Withdrawn by nominator, no opinions to delete. Kevin 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mama Bhagne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I cannot easily verify the subject's existence; I'm suspecting a hoax, but I'm not sure. --Spring Rubber 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• After the discussion here, I acknowledge that this nomination was in error, and I retract my nomination to delete this article. --Spring Rubber 05:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a hoax, its very real, if this AfD notice was put by a bot then the bot algo should take care of the time lag between edits (especially when creating a new page ). Its really annoying to see the article you just created with so much of effort is put with an ugly tag. Jeroje 06:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)jeroje[reply]

• Keep Article definitely needs work but is evolving and appears to be relevant. AfD was seemingly premature, posted after first edit of a work in progress Dick G 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You're suspecting a hoax are you Spring Rubber? And how much in depth research did you do on the topic in the FOUR MINUTES between the initial creation of this article and your tagging it for AfD? Did you go through all the suggested steps on the AfD page before tagging in those four minutes as well? As Jeroje points out, it is incredibly annoying for new articles on perfectly legitimate topics to be tagged so zealously, especially when the nominator admits that he's 'not sure' about whether it should be tagged at all. It just creates more work for editors who'd be much happier actually writing articles and constructively contributing to wikipedia. This rock formation was featured prominently in the famous Indian film Abhijan directed by Satyajit Ray Nick mallory 07:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, fine, if it's real, then I apologize. I just didn't know how else to proceed. I couldn't find any verification under the exact article title. Is it supposed to be written as-is or with a hyphen? I once made a bad AFD nomination a few years ago, and that one at least generated the attention required to make the proper improvements to the article. At the very least, I was hoping that would be the case here. --Spring Rubber 09:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • It's OK, I know you weren't being malicious, just keen. It's probably a good idea to give the writer of the article a chance to finish his initial work on the article though, or to contact him directly for more information, before rushing to AfD. If you're unsure about notability in a case like this there are other steps you can take. It's held that geographical features are usually notable here. My concern is that new writers to wikipedia can be frightened off by seeing their work immediately tagged and the project loses overall. Verifiability isn't determined by ghits. Nick mallory 09:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Alright, perhaps we should settle upon what the correct article title should be in relation to the first three words in the article text. In a Google search, including the third word with "Mama Bhagne" returns no results. Should the third word belong? --Spring Rubber 17:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a hoax. Thin Arthur 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I doubted from the beginning that this was any kind of hoax. There are some pretty desperate article writers around here, but I don't think for a minute that anybody would go to the senseless trouble to invent . . . a couple of granite rocks in West Bengal. Qworty 11:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be an authentic landmark of at least local importance. Here it's called "legendary", here it's called "reknowned", and here it's called "significant". None of the above are reliable sources IMHO, but it's definitely not a hoax and seems like it would be covered in travel guides and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Shall we hyphenate the title since that seems to be how the name is displayed in the sources? --Spring Rubber 23:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it has been established that this is not a hoax. Yamaguchi先生 04:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have removed the notice, since the result was keep. Jeroje 09:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)jeroje[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.