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. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enayetpur[edit]

Illegible and nonnotable subject (I cannot discern what the article is about). Disputed prod by user who later added reference to high school, which does not at all make this thing more notable. Article translated poorly from nonenglish source. No other third party sources. BrooklynBarber (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually there are two books sources in the article that confirm that this is an inhabited community. Poor translation is a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a valid administrative division of Bangladesh. I can't blame BrooklynBarber for the nomination, though; it is pretty impenetrable. 20:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Verifiable and officially designated administrative area in Bangladesh. Note that the area can also be referred to as "Enayetpur Upazila". Many references crop up when searching with the upazila suffix. E.g. [1]. --Ragib (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per everyone but nominator. Real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2008 (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.