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 speedy keep. We don't delete articles about towns with 30,000+ people. Ever. JBsupreme (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manendragarh[edit]

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

It has very little importance, and is poorly written. Jayson (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: its a city and municipality as surveyed in Indian Census 2001. Just because some IP users added unsourced materials, it does not follow that the article should be deleted. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't delete settlements here, especially those with 30,000+ people in them. As Indian town/village stubs go, this is in better shape than most. Anyhow, bad writing calls for cleanup, not deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Grounds for deletion is notability not poorly written. A census town in India is notable. I fail to see how you conclude that a town of 30,000 to be of little importance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:17, 2 November 2008 (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.