Deletion of List of Kolkata facts

Comment: and merge whatever is needed) to Kolkata. The premise for this article, collecting miscellaneous facts, without clear criteria beyond geography (surely it is not supposed to be a collection of every fact about Calcutta) is a problem.  might be a relevant policy, but I will be cautious in using it since the facts themselves are in fact quite reasonable and encyclopedic. They are just better presented in the context of the main article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: Yet another article facing AfD because it's not been developed to a high standard. Please, this is a collaborative project, and articles are not submitted ''after'' meeting ''all'' quality standards. If you care about the article, develop it. If you don't have the time or the resources, tag it with {{tl|cleanup}} or something. Deleting articles are detrimental to the growth of Wikipedia, and is not a proposal to be wielded lightly. The Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state|current state of the article is not probably the best way to organize an article, but that calls for article development. Getting rid of things that looks like work is not called organization, it's called demolition.This ''is'' a sub-article of the Kolkata article, so the merge proposal doesn't seem valid, especially since the mother article is a quite stable article of featured status. The information is encyclopedic enough to warrant a keep anytime, and it's well sourced as well. What policy stands against this article, apart from a loosely used "indiscriminate information" identification? Since the information is already very much about a number of highlights of the city of Kolkata, even that doesn't apply. It is not a coincidence that the merge opinions holders have already acknowledged the usefulness and encyclopedic nature of the information.The two pieces of information cherry-picked and presented put of context is even less of a reason for deletion. They are very much part of an attempt at contextualizing the information in the article. Like, if you don't know who Satyajit Ray is, you don't have to click on the link first, rather the article would give you a short brief on the person and his notability. That is very much a Wikiepdia way of doing things, not the other way round. And, if you don't like it still, try copyedit.|I don't care about it or |I don't like it are not deletion arguments, they are subjective opinions of a personal kind. I understand that this nomination was made in good faith and those who voiced for delete and merge acted in good faith, but, please, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built|don't demolish the house while it's still being built. I have worked on the article along with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTCARE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)