Talk:Coimbatore railway Division

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... (The article is about a existed railway division in Indian railways.people needs to know that a railway division existed in past.so I made this article.for proof refer tamil and english newspapers.May be if u want i will cite it in the page.deleting the page is like disrespecting my contribution to wikipedia.i took lots of time to make this article and if u easily delete this what is the use of making article.the article is credible.For more proof check the history of Indian railways.coimbatore division was changed as ollavakkod in 1956 and renamed as palakad division in 1980 s.so kindly check the internet if u want to verify the credibility of the article.) --2405:204:7245:7E59:0:0:2A21:48A5 (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Reason to delete
Dear, i doubt your action and your reason for it. Wish you could have googled better else consulted the creator of article or the nominator (me) or queried here and if not you could have approached WT:RR or WT:INB (which had happened before when some AFD/CSD had popped-up over these noticeboards for clarification from relevant editors, in my experience) before hitting that revert button and mind typing the reason. First of all, there NO such thing as "Coimbatore railway Division" (Sorry for the typos, had to replicate as such). The article quotes some references which has no direct or indirect connection with the subject provided, hence fails WP:ORGIND and WP:FAILCORP too thus qualified to be removed from this encyclopedia as mentioned at WP:FAILN. See 1, 2 & 3, for some additional info which i found when i queried for so-called "Coimbatore railway Division" (Again sorry for the typos) over Google.com. Even archive.org too didn't showed up anything when this title of article pressed into the search bar. And all this sounds to be original research, not verifiable. Do enlighten me, if you found something verifiable which could be compelling to justify your revert. By the way, other than the creator of the this article,, this IP and this one were found to be editing (not adhering to WP:PSTS) and arguing on same subject. Could this be smoke of meatpuppetry? As an administrator, you may please take a note of this. . --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 19:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your speedy deletion nomination was that this was madeup (WP:A11). The A11 criterion has two pieces and both must be met to qualify for deletion.  The first part is that the article must plainly indicate that the article creator either made up the subject of the article or personally knows the person who made it up.  The second part is that there is no credible claim to significance.  If either of these are not met it does not qualify for deletion under A11.  In this article there is nothing in the article that plainly indicates  made this up.  So it fails the first part of the criterion without even looking at the second part.  Looking at the second part of the criterion, there is a credible claim to significance in the article.  The article says it is a former railway division of the Southern Railway Zone of Indian Railways and that is a credible claim to significance.  The way forward is to nominate using WP:PROD or WP:AFD.   ~ GB fan 23:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to what I wrote above, if I have to consult others before deciding that something can be deleted using speedy deletion criterion (CSD) then it falls outside of CSD. CSD is for uncontroversial deletions and when we have to start checking on things to determine if it is deleteable then WP:PROD or WP:AFD is a better option.  ~ GB fan 12:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 18:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)