Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Ghat

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) Lourdes 00:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Ghat

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT (WP:GNG) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There is a lot of coverage of the place in multiple reliable sources. A google search for ("Gandhi Ghat" "Patna") gives 251 news results, 143 results in google books, 1010 mentions in Dainik Jagran, 426 mentions in Dainik Bhaskar, 296 mentions in Telegraph among many more, more than enough to pass WP:GNG. NIT Patna website calls it "one of the most important and reverential place of Patna" and also says "The Gandhi Ghat is associated with the immersion of ashes of father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi in the river Ganges". Due to its historical significance, the subject also passes 2nd point of WP:GEOFEAT. Pratyush (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is a historical place in Patna, Bihar, India. It is famous for its Ganga Aarti and also known for immersion of ashes of Mahatma Gandhi. This place has historical significance and I think it deserves a page on Wikipedia. This place is also one of the major tourist attractions on the banks of Ganges in the city. Ananprat (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PratyushSinha101 and Ananprat: kindly try to improve the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will surely try to improve it when I have time. Pratyush (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the coverage found by PratyushSinha101 are trivial mentions of river flooding and water levels at that location, and other routine things. This applies especially to the news searches. However, the book search does find enough coverage to pass GNG. MB 05:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2017 (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.