Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chief Commissioners of Panth-Piploda


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Chief Commissioners of Panth-Piploda

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A list consisting of one entry is not a list at all. All the necessary information contained in this "list" are already in the main article. Hence, I nominate this for deletion.  kur  ykh   00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, a one entry list...is not a list. A PROD could of/should of been used instead. RockManQ  (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete senseless list at this point. JJL (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge information back to Panth-Piploda (a province of British India that later became part of the Ratlam District of Madhya Pradesh state. It seems that earlier today (October 9), one contributor added the sentence "There was only one chief commissioner, Sir Walter Fendall Campbell," while someone else (who wasn't logged in) took the sentence out with the comment "not true".  Instead of creating a separate article, find a source for the information about Sir Walter.  Until then, haggle it out on the "discussion" page for the article.  Mandsford (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above; not useful for navigation. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:39, 12 October 2008 (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.