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. As the nomination is based on the state of the article after vandalism, which has been corrected, I discount the nom and the opinion that simply says "per nom". Since the existence of this village has been verified, the view "Not verifiable" must also be discounted. This leaves the only deletion reason as "trivial" which is countered by "would be an easy keep if in the US or UK", and the general rule that all actual towns and villages are considered notable per se. Thus the weight of arguments favors keeping, as does the weight of non-discounted numbers. There is not a clear consensus on merging, so that can be done or not done as an editorial action without need of an AfD. DES ^(talk) 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eksar[edit]

Unsourced and contradictory article that establishes no notability. Small village with 1 million inhabitants? Author has no other contribs. Gilliam 08:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a hoax so delete unless it is cleaned up and reliable sources are provided to show its existence. Davewild 09:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Complete nonsense! -- MightyWarrior 09:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. Not a candidate for speedy deletion as it does assert its importance. Interestingly, I have taken part in debates about the notability of towns and villages, and although the current consensus is that they are all notable, the missing encyclopedic articles WikiProject says that there are some large towns in the third world which do not have Wikipedia articles yet...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just checked the history of the article and bit about 1 million inhabitants was recently added by what looks like a vandal, it was originally written as 1 thousand inhabitants. Davewild 09:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted the article back to before the vandalism and am striking my previous delete as now believe it is probably not a hoax but verifiable sources are required. Davewild 09:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The information contained herein is trivial (the persons mentioned are definitely not notable) and unverifiable. /Blaxthos 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The village "Eksar" actually exists in Chapra district of Bihar. utcursch | talk 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the fact that there is evidence that it exists changed my position to keep but clean up, a village of 1,000 people would be an easy keep if in the US or UK so should be no different if in India. Davewild 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (changed my position). When the non-notable people and POV comments are removed, very little remains in this article. Suggest that it is merged into a suitable article for a nearby place (for instance, Chapra). -- MightyWarrior 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Anwar 18:44, 26 June 2007 (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.