Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baragam

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. Location meets GEOLAND, and a necessary clean up of the article can be handled outside of AfD (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baragam

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of sources well as fails WP:V and WP:GNG. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 13:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 13:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly exists and is a recognised village. We keep all officially recognised settlements per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have found this village in 2011 census, which clearly establishes this as a village meriting an article. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that disambiguation is going to be in order as there is another Baragam in a different region which collects most of the hits for this place name. Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the subject matter is worthy, the article is written so poorly that it should not be on Wikipedia. It does not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, has numerous typos on every line indicating that the writer is not familiar with the basic rules of the English language, and is vastly under-referenced to the point of not being trustworthy. Articles like this one are the type that give Wikipedia a bad reputation. Ira Leviton (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not cleanup. All we're here to do is assess the notability of the topic, not the quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an actual place and seems to meet notability guidelines. As stated above, AfD is not cleanup. -- Dane ^talk 19:16, 17 July 2020 (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.