Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhagad fort

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 (non-admin closure). There were no delete preferences, and the possibility of merging is left up to article editors. Skomorokh 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sudhagad fort

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

Non-notable and almost irretrevable as a WP page due to quality. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 08:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to change my nom to a Merge with Sudhagad per discussion below. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 06:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment that website is only some kind of blog; there is a more reliable one here but with little information. I agree the article is salvageable, but it needs a complete rewrite from its present travel-guide style, cutting back more or less to a stub, unless more sources can be found. JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/Rescue Refer it on to the WP:IND group. A quick check of the article for the state it's in reveals a section (12) on "Forts" without any information or examples. They could rewrite this and use it there perhaps. They would certainly have more idea than us no doubt on it's worth as a keep or delete. Being unlinked, they may well not know of it.Akitora (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Quite aside from the other considerations mentioned above, hitting an article with a speedy tag three freaking minutes after creation is obnoxious, and filing AfD two hours later not much less bitey. Someone ought to tell the cowboys who get bruised thumbs reloading the New Article page that Wikipedia doesn't give out awards for the most speedies filed a day.  RGTraynor  13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, while not all of the sources meet WP:RS, there's enough from which to draw an article. Badly written is not a reason to delete. Many forts in the US are on the National Register, it may be the case in India as well. I'm all for weeding out crud, but this just smacks of 'didn't look' TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Change to Merge per Whpq below, it's a moderately better article. Question is, which is the better name for the article? Which should be a re-direct and which should be the main article? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, absolutely; it's tough to imagine how, in the 180 seconds between the article's creation and it hitting CSD, the speedier could have possibly done even the most cursory check on the subject's notability. You also have to love the go-getter who slapped orphan and wikify tags onto it nine minutes after creation.  RGTraynor  15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment referred] to the Indian WikiProject for help. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Sudhagad which appears to be another article about the fort without "fort" in the article title. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge sourced information to Sudhagad per Whpq - well spotted. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously, deletion cannot occur based on notability per WP:NOT#policy. Therefor, there are no grounds to delete listed in the nom. MrPrada (talk) 23:40, 7 April 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.