Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baruda

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 Bhanjanagar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baruda

[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)

As written, the original article contained a lot of copyright violations written from a non-neutral point-of-view. I removed a lot of the copyvio, but now, I can't find information about the village from reliable sources, though they may exist. Significa liberdade (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bhanjanagar: Redirects are WP:CHEAP and this fails GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a census settlement per WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per above and WP:NOPAGE. Census tracts aren't presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND, and the only data provided here is purely statistical. FOARP (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning redirect. Would that be okay with the nominator?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no evidence this census tract has received SIGCOV in IRS.

JoelleJay (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2023 (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.