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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sifan[edit]

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

No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have cited a source confirming that this passes WP:GEOLAND. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Legally recognised populated village should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be fixed by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page. Anup [Talk] 11:11, 8 November 2016 (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.