Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talib Nagar State


 * 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   redirect to Talib Nagar. While the consensus was for deletion, the edit history must be retained to provide proper attribution. In the future, please move articles to a new title rather than cutting and pasting parts of one article to another. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talib Nagar State

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no mention of Talibnagar, as a Princely State anywhere. The google search for the result comes to zero. Jethwarp (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment:The creator may change the page to Talibnagar, which at present is a village in Uttar Pradesh and add these contents in its history. But the name Talibnagar State gives a false notion that it was princely state.Jethwarp (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Did a reference check and no reference to such state, so I'm gonna say Delete unless some gives reasons that suggest otherwise CapMan07008 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Noting that the creator of the page has not taken any interest in either improving the article or put his opinion forward. I have created a new page Talib Nagar in which I have put some of the contents of this page. As Talib Nagar was never a Princely state this page Talib Nagar State should be deletedJethwarp (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete More sources are needed to prove that it was a Princely state. --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2011 (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.