Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewari metal work

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 delete. ✗plicit 00:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewari metal work

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This topic may lack WP:NOTABILITY and is in a perpetual state of lacking WP:VERIFIABILITY through WP:CITATIONS. There is a risk of significant WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. BlockArranger (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Haryana. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 01:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced since 2011. Sources do exist since one is cited at Rewari but probably not enough for a WP:SPLIT. lp0 on fire () 12:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so while perhaps merging the best unsourced content would not be optimal, we could of course archive the article somewhere and let the Rewari contributors salvage whatever they want and find sources for. It's often difficult to find sources for existing content, but it's probably for the better to have that option too. BlockArranger (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per total lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found a source here which much of the article content appears to have been copied from word-for-word, but given that the source is 'rewarionline' I don't think it's suitably independent of the subject. I do think there might be potential notability here in non-online sources, but in any case the article as it stands is wholly unfit to be a wikipedia article and TNTing the thing and starting over would be better anyway. Athanelar (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding notability, I think it can first be included only in the Rewari article, which is already notable. At this pace, it will take a long time for any major amount of prose to be constructed. While we could of course look for notability, it seems unnecessary to do so as the section does not need to be more notable than being significant within the scope of the article. Anyway, good that you put time into looking into it. BlockArranger (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Fade258 (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it never got sufficient sourcing. --99of9 (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, merging 1-2 paragraphs into Rewari. I posted on that talk page to alert relevant editors.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-lack of SIGCOV sources, even with additional searches so far, unsure of the merge given the lack of sources to verify its content.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot accept without references. Agreeing to nom AlphaCore talk 23:10, 21 November 2025 (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.