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. Tiddly-Tom 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhogali Bihu[edit]

Bhogali Bihu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No clear explanation as to what the subject of the article is. No clear indication of notability. Written more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. SWik78 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Strong Delete Certainly fails WP:NOTABILITY--SkyWalker (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Iam changing the vote to keep. Here is what google shows [1].--SkyWalker (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I've made a few minor edits to the article to make it clear what this is. I've also added an external link for verification purposes. I'm completely unfamiliar with the subject, so I won't comment one way or the other on notability. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The rationale behind the nomination is utterly flawed.
  1. The subject of the article is about a festival that marks the end of the harvest season. A cursory glance in the first sentence of the article gives it away. Very subjective reasoning for deletion.
  2. A plain vanilla Google search is a probable indication of notability. Based on the search results, we know it exists, so therefore it might be notable. Now, folk festivals such as these are notable and cannot be disputed. This crashes the notability clause. If you want credible sources for notability, please do a Google News search: [2]
  3. Essay-style articles are not, and have never been a clause for deletion.

Please remember that just because a new author has failed put in references, written it in a style that he is not aware of, it does not mean that the article is not notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. See Bihu for context. utcursch | talk 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've just added a few sources from the many readily available online. This festival is clearly notable, as the nominator could easily have discovered by doing a couple of basic searches before bringing it to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with all the points noted above for keeping the article. Over a period of time, it will grow: User:Angela/Stubs. --Bhadani (talk) 18:06, 22 January 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.