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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samya Garh, Bihar

[edit]

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

Multiple problems— unreferenced, uncategorized, section written in language other than English, rest poorly written, include section for some biographical introduction, etc. — Bill william compton^Talk 12:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing listed is a normal reason for deletion. This appears to be a settlement, which is usually a suitable topic for an article. The rest of the problems can be dealt with by normal editing, such as providing a category, removing inappropriate material, translating non-English parts, etc. --Jayron32 12:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the criteria of having a reliable source? isn't a normal reason for deletion? and who's going to make that suitable changes, you suggested? — Bill william compton^Talk 12:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is verifiable, which means "able to be verified". It does not mean that it currently has references. See WP:BEFORE. Typing the name of the village into google takes less time than filing an AFD does, and if you do that you get plenty of sources. Presumably, there are even more non-English sources. Also, it doesn't matter who makes the "suitable changes". Not being able to find someone to fix an article isn't the reason an article is deleted. We're in no rush, someone will come along to fix things. Since it seems you, Bill william compton, are wholly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's deletion policies, you may want to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy before nominating something else for deletion. Especially relevent there is the sentence which says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." --Jayron32 13:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I may not be much familiar with the deletion policies, but I know what I'm doing, my first action was to Google this name and check for any reliable source, but unfortunately I didn't find any that could be a reliable one and second, your presumption of having more non-English sources is also unfounded as the topic is related to India and in this country it is much easier to find English sources rather than any local language and I certainly presume that you must be familiar with the status of English in India. If I found any reliable source than I might solve the problem by myself. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An Indian government website lists the village as a settlement, confirming state, district and block. Anyone know what the other column headings are about? Could be some nice official numbers that could go in to the article. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed the biography and the non-English language section of text and added a category. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is now referenced, and verifiable settlements are considered notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ticks all boxes. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets all the criteria. Well done on a nice repair of the article! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:07, 29 May 2011 (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.