Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindaun Fort

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindaun Fort

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

Non-notable ruin which might be a palace or a fort. Material is covered also at Hindaun, so WP:FORK applies. Article is not only uncited, but by my search, it's unciteable as there are basically no suitable sources to demonstrate notability. Redirect and PROD were removed by author, so here we are. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Clearly an historic building which would undoubtedly be heritage listed if it was in a Western country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are actually multiple references to Hindaun Fort in a number of books including Administrative System of the Rajputs (1979), The Second Anglo-Maratha War, 1802-1805: a Study in Military History (1990), New History of the Marathas: Sunset over Maharashtra (1772-1848) (1968), and Rajasthan [district Gazetteers].: Sawai Madhopur (1981) to name a few. Dan arndt (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, many thanks for the books, do you have actual quotations, page numbers or URLs to provide verifiable citations? Simply repeating "GEOFEAT" does not help much as the policy rightly saysTherefore, what we require here (as in many places) is actual evidence of notability. The district Gazetteer is certainly a "directory" in the terms of WP:GEOFEAT and is therefore not evidence of notability. The other books could possibly be suitable but we require evidence of substantial entries (per WP:GNG as well as WP:GEOFEAT) to do this correctly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Per Necro and Dan. --Molestash (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2017 (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.