Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anterdol Dandpat

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anterdol Dandpat

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure that any of the information is reliable and a lot seems as if it is a story or an anecdote   Kadzi   (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as apparently 100% original research. Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TNT - any article on this subject would need to start again, not be based on a string of unsourced personal reminiscences. - Arjayay (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The topic may or may not be notable but there is nothing salvageable about the current first-person account. Pichpich (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, nothing useable here. Formatting oddities such as "to be continued", unexplained timestamps and nonstandard quote boxes make me suspect that the whole thing was copy-pasted from another source. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates so many major policies it's not even worth listing them here. And even draftifying it would be pointless, as it would need to be completely rewritten starting from scratch. Just get rid of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and encourage contributor to start by adding something at Hirakud Dam --Cornellier (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete all prior !votes as superseded. I spent a little time on the article, deleting the massive wall of text from a relatively inexperienced editor that can't now be verified. But this is a verifiable former populated village. We now have a stub that can be kept. Any of y'all could have done what I did! I hope to make sure we have articles on all of the 249 submerged villages someday, who wants to help!!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources have been added. Mccapra (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear pass of WP:GEOLAND, and thanks to Milowent for doing what I had intended to do but hadn't got round to yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.