Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ejipura


 * 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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT "fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". The AfD process is not for content issues that should be resolved through editing. I encourage the new editor who nominated this page for deletion to discuss their concerns on the talk page, or to add other sourced content to the article themselves. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ejipura
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am familiar with this part of Bangalore. The article is nonsense and is a deliberate attempt to discredit a good neighbourhood. There have been a few problems as there are anywhere but this is sheer exaggeration by an irresponsible editor. He uses biased newspaper sources in which the reports are largely untrue. Forgive me if I misunderstand site procedures but I believe you expect all primary sources like newspapers to be verified by reliable secondary sources. There are no secondary sources supporting this garbage and never will be. The article is an insult to everyone in Ejipura. Bangalore Dhoni (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  02:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  02:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep WP:PRIMARY is the policy about such things, but I thought that newspapers were secondary sources? The subject appears notable, so it looks like rewrite from bottom up may be in order. Thanks L3X1 (distænt write)  02:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep All three of the sources are secondary, independent, and reliable. Nominator, please see Secondary source -- newspapers are secondary sources. &mdash; cnzx  03:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep The article shows something in 'bad light' is no valid criteria to nominate an article; you can improve it yourself provided it's accompanied with reliable sources. Moreover, all three sources provided are reputed news agencies. MT TrainDiscuss 12:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and snow close - Another newbie editor targeting me with nonsensical AfDs. "Irresponsible editor"? Yeah right. I smell another WP:SOCK here. Try harder buddy, I have 500 more articles for you to AfD. Dee  03  15:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above is sourced by the The Times of India ,Deccan Chronicle and The Hindu.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2017 (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.