Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional fishing tackle of Central India


 * 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. – bradv  🍁  00:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Traditional fishing tackle of Central India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be an essay rather than an article. Couldn't establish that it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion began with argument for "valid encyclopedic topic", and the counter-argument started to evolve. I believe this discussion is in the middle of forming consensus, and needs more time, hence the relist.
 * Keep as a valid encyclopedic topic, it does not seem promotional but needs more references, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid encyclopedic topic, or send to draft until more third party sources are found. The article currently relies on a single source, a submitted (but possibly not accepted) 2007 thesis. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree it is a valid encyclopedic topic. Someone who can speak Hindi can find sources to add, or see what the Wikipedia in that language has on the subject.   D r e a m Focus  17:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid encyclopedic topic which can be properly sourced with RSs. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:TNT. This is entirely sourced to a single source, possibly self-published. While this could be a notable topic, this article is a huge mess. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article currently has its issues, but the history of fishing in India seems like an encyclopaedic topic to me. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify. Whether we consider a topic "encyclopedic" is not relevant (WP:ILIKEIT). What matters are the sources. And a single thesis, apparently not published or perhaps even accepted, is not enough of a reliable source to base a whole article on.  Sandstein   08:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: This seems pretty easy to source; I put the title into Google search and immediately found sources that look good to me.
 * "Traditional fishing methods in Central valley region of Manipur, India" by B. Nightingale Devi, SK Mishra, Lipi Das, NA Pawar and Th.Ibemcha Chanu, Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge vol. 12 no. 1 (January 2013)
 * "Indigenous fishing (Char Kanta): A traditional fisheries in River Tawa, Madhya Pradesh, India" by AK Bose, Ridhi, S Gupta, VR Suresh and AK Das, International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies vol. 5 no. 3 (2017)
 * "In India, Fishermen Are Using Traditional Rules to Tackle Declining Catches" by Vinita Govindarajan, Quartz India (Nov 20, 2017)
 * Now, I don't know anything about international aquatic studies, so maybe I'm missing some reason why those aren't reliable sources, but I think this demonstrates notability of the subject. WP:NEXIST says that if reliable sources exist, then the subject is notable. WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't affect the notability of the subject. Problems with this article should be solved by normal editing, not deletion; I'll post these three sources in a Further reading section so that folks will have some resources to start with. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * : Great work digging up these sources to help improve the article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a promotional piece of content. Its an informative article.Jai49 (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2020 (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.