Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakkur (Bengaluru) Inscriptions


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Jakkur (Bengaluru) Inscriptions

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not ready for mainspace. not have any source Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions.  Delta  space 42  (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The article now has many relevant citations and strong sources added. This article is extremely notable as it shares accurate and verifiable information about historic Jakkur. Therefore, this article must be retained and should not deleted. Anusha.Morching (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Draftify, clearly not ready for mainspace. Unclear notability and reads like a WP:SYNTH. SailingInABathTub 🛁 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SailingInABathTub what do you think about the changes made since your !vote? The nom wants to withdraw. -- asilvering (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @asilvering, the article has improved. The lede still requires attention but there is no need to keep this discussion open and it can be closed as keep/withdrawn. SailingInABathTub 🛁 16:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment – Note that the article now has sources and 17 citations. North America1000 10:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Actually, at this time. i am satisfied with the improvements of this article. Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment – I went through and made a whole lot of copyedits. One thing to note is that even though there were 19 references at the time, 12 of those were duplicates. Recon  rabbit  17:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.