Deletion of Barel

Comment: per  and start over
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: The policy is the opposite, we should delete unless there is confirmation that it does exist, per . The "article" is only two sentences and can easily be recreated if sources are found. There are probably thousands of villages in India alone without articles. Not having an article on a small village is not unusual. The fact that an unsourced article has remained for 12 years already is irrelevant
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VER)

Comment: per , as Barel is a populated place, which is legally recognized by the government of India. BTW, I've rewritten the article along with adding a couple of relevant sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: per , now that the article's been rewritten about a place that is properly verifiable in |reliable sources. If the nominator or anyone else feels strongly about stripping the unverifiable old version from the edit history, we can still do either a |revision delete, or a quick technical delete with immediate restoration of ''only'' the edits that pertain to the real place. But those things can still be proposed on the article's talk page quite independently of the AFD result — revdel and/or temporary delete-and-restore are options that always remain open to us for dealing with a lot of content or technical problems, and don't necessarily require an AFD result to support them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND||WP:RS||WP:REVDEL)

Comment: Now the article is untouchable as per . {{smiley|shades}} —usernamekiran
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)