Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hwlwighati

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and move to Shilghati. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hwlwighati

Hwlwighati (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Here I am putting a town up for afd, I fully realize the presumed notability of populated locations. I also realize that Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline and that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy that starts with The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. That having been said, I found this article while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and did not find anything resembling a reliable reference.Ghit web Ghit books Most of what I found seems to circle back around to the Wikipedia article. The best resource I found was Tripura Written by suchetan kr mukherjee Sunday, 01 July 2007 at googling.in which is basically a rewrite of Tripura that even links back to assorted Wikipedia articles. The official tourist site http://tripura.nic.in/ttourism1.htm does not mention Hwlwighati as far as I can tell. I only have one request, if you want to vote keep, find and post a single reliable reference to the article and I will vote keep as well. Jeepday (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unless the existence of the place can be verified and sources can be provided to correct the nonsensical statements in the article as it stands. The lead says that it is in the state of Tripura and is near Udaipur, yet those places are more than 1,000 miles apart. It also says that the place is situated on the banks of the Gomati, which is nowhere near either Tripura or Udaipur. Something's fishy, and without references this cannot stand, per WP:V. Deor (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Udaipur in Rajasthan is not to be confused with Udaipur in Tripura. Google search will help explain that. Same goes for Gomati too. You can see it here.Shovon (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Shovon. The article itself links to the wrong Udaipur and the wrong Gomati, then. With your hints, I was able to find a map showing a place named "Silghati" in the correct area, and Google searches for the spelling "Shilghati" do turn up hits that at least establish the existence of the place (assuming that this is the place the article refers to). I'm changing my opinion to weak keep and recommending that the article be moved to Shilghati, since that seems to be the name used in the preponderance of the English references. I would like to see some references for the information in the article, though, as I'm not finding sources for nearly any of it. Deor (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As Deor has pointed out, the article, in all probability refers to Silghati. There is definitely no place called Hwlwighati in Tripura. Shovon (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. As you stated, inherent notability of populated places is trumped by WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to Shilghati and keep. The name Hwlwighati is of mysterious origin, and likely can be eliminated, but the location itself falls within the per se notability rule for towns. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow. Old hoax. Delete. Google turns up nothing useful but stuff on answers.com that were derived from here on Wikipedia. Google Maps suggests searching for Halwati. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Going to weak keep per the research above, in favor of a move to what seems to be the canonical spelling. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. The place, at least going by its present spelling, does not seem to exist at all. Please refer to this. Changing my opinion to Keep after seeing the map pointed by Deor. But, the article's name should be changed to "Silghati" Shovon (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as Shilghati per above. That's the spelling on the government web site.[1] Shilighati and Silghati appear to be plausible variants. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to Shilghati and keep, the alternate name and location has been verified. Jeepday (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the long standing consensus about inhabited places. Rational or not, a single afd is not the place to upset something as stable as this--especially because I think there would not be consensus for changing the standard for these. DGG (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


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.