Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belasagar, Kulpahar


 * 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. Pigman ☿ 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Belasagar, Kulpahar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced, tiny stub, only google hits hit wikipedia or mirrors. mrholybrain 's talk 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not appear to be notable, nor in need of this article. If it is important, a merge and redirect to Uttar Pradesh may be best. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep-Though most of the hits are mirrors, I was able to pull up at least 6 external sources to verify that is of a minor significance to agriculture and tourism in the region. Needs to be cleaned and cited, though.---Iconoclast Horizon 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.  ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 06:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable as far as I can tell. I live next to Marsh Creek State Park, which is a tiny little watershed in Pennsylvania... barely notable except for the very local residents... yet we have a substantial wikipedia article, and there are easily 50 external references available. How much less notable must this place be to have really no subtantive references.--Pearrari (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep by long practice all, all such geographic features are notable. the point of such a convention is to remove the need for debates such as this one, about the relative merits of small bodies of water. There is no rule in any case that many references are necessary to demonstrate notability--if there are two reliable sources, its enough. Please, however, add them now to the article so we can see without all having to look them up independently. DGG (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as Dgg said, all geographical features are notable and we have had many prior AfDs certifying this. I would also like to point out that you will not find any sources on the internet about a lake in Rajasthan and that does not mean that it is not cited in many references. Having worked on many articles about India I know that there are very few reliable sources about anything in India on the internet. Wikipedia is by far the best resource on the internet about India and most of the sites copy material from wikipedia. So even finding 6 sources about this lake is quite an achievement. If Marsh Creek State Park has a very substantive article right now, let us hope that this one too will be good one day. But as to the notability, both are equally notable per established practices at wiki. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2007 (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.