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. From the comments in the rather weak discussion, there seems to be a consensus for keeping under the condition that it is massively cleaned up. I have tagged the article appropriately. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Looks nonsense and puffery. Many sources are facebook pages, other Wikipedia pages or sources impossible to check, even when you know the language and script like the source "General Maqsood Abbasi", what looks like own research. Rotten language. The Banner talk 02:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but... The article is about a place or adminstrative division (current and historical versions of the article differ on this point) of a type which we generally regard as notable under WP:NPLACE or WP:GEOLAND. However, the article does suffer in large measure from the defects specified by the nominator, though much of this seems to have been introduced over the last three months by an new and over-enthusiastic editor who has been concentrating on editing this and a few closely related articles. Having said that, the state of the article when he started editing it was not at all good. While I think it may be a good idea to search through current and old versions of the article for any material that can be properly sourced and salvaged (the sourcing is mostly hopeless, but editors may have been working from local knowledge, some of which might be verifiable from reliable sources), it may well be necessary - at least for now - to stub the article and be prepared to start again. And finally, another complicating point - there seems to be another article on the administrative division at Berote Kalan, which however seems to be a stub with only primary sources. PWilkinson (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic seems to be suitable for an article, but if this version is to be kept, it needs to be gutted of all the unencylopedic content, the original research, the promotion of specific individuals, etc. I'm not sure there will be much left after that. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – although the article needs a lot of copyedit. Zia Khan 02:00, 26 January 2013 (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.