Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandi Bird Sanctuary

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. geographical locations are mostly notable (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Bird Sanctuary

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lakes and other geographic features are automatically notable. This sanctuary is also a lake.(27°19'N, 79°59'E) and should be kept for that reason. (From the article: "The Sandi Bird sanctuary is also known by its ancient name as “Dahar Jheel” (Jheel = Lake)")

I found a reference at the World Database on Protected Areas: http://www.wdpa.org/siteSheet.aspx?sitecode=308595

I think that there may also be reference in http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Portals/15/India.pdf -- Eastmain (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After looking through the sources I find, I think that almost every national or state/provincial park or other protected area is the subject of coverage in reliable sources. The discussions about whether the area should be protected, and the legislation and ceremonies to designate a protected area will generate coverage from reliable sources -- butnot necessarily online. This is why I suggest that these areas be considered inherently notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a bird sanctuary. All such sanctuaries are notable unless all are considered non-notable.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ll protected natural areas a notable, at least id they areublicones,m on a substantail style--along with all state, provicinial, and national parks, and similar public entirtites. tehre will all be descriptive sources. DGG (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment -- What on earth do you mean that you can't find a reliable source? Google it up! You don't need a peer reviewed journal to establish that it exists. Govt of India source =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments and these topics are notable. Ref Center of Pollution control board Government of India --GPPande talk! 11:33, 11 November 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.