Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historic sites in Orissa

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 06:01Z

Historic sites in Orissa

Tagged for speedy due to "copyright problems from 123orissa.com as well as the now defunct orissa-tourism.com. No significant edits beyond the copyright problem"; seems valid but the article is out of the 48 hour period and the subject may be valid if copyvio sorted. If not, it needs deleting. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 48hr rule has disappeared from WP:CSD#G12, no? Deizio talk 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content is duplicate of Orissa#Key_historic_and_prehistoric_sites, and doesn't seem to be copied from some other site. Google returns a Wikipedia mirror. utcursch | talk 11:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No copyvio apparent, and this text is also no longer duplicated on Orissa. Still, it has zero sources, and so fails WP:NOR. Sandstein 12:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this has no sources, as Sandstein says, is good enough reason to delete, even if it isn't copyvio. However, as that was only brought up two days ago and AfDs run for at least five for a reason, I feel that this discussion should be relisted given the change in focus, so editors have the chance to show verifiability if possible. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some references. I was unable to find the copyright violations. If we find that some body has copied something, then we should delete ONLY the offending portion and not the entire article.Preetikapoor0 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following Preetikapoor0's excellent work, I've added some more refs and wikified the article a bit. Each of the sites mentioned in the article have at least one reference. utcursch | talk 13:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References have been added. --Bondego 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bondego.Baka man 16:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now keep after references were added, but merge with the now again duplicate section in Orissa. Sandstein 19:48, 30 December 2006 (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.