Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhallong river camp


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Jhallong river camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No indication of WP:notability. Unsourced. Reads more like a tripadvisor review than an encyclopaedia entry. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete: I'm almost inclined to support keeping this article as Wikipedia serves as a Gazetteer; however, I believe the nominator correctly identifies that this article has some major flaws. Not supported by reliable sources. Zujua (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * keep with rewrite Clearly the current form of the article is not acceptable, it reads like guidebook and lacks reliable source. Howeve with appropriate modification, and references, the article can be kept; it is a locality with significant tourism activity. Like many other South Asia related articles, it may be difficult to offer readily-available online references though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete; fails the GNG. No doubt it's possible to google a lot of passing mentions of a tourist attraction, but that isn't sufficient to make it notable. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of online reliable sources and the impossibility of offline sources existing for the subject. Secret of success (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2012 (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.