Talk:Delhi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Delhi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 3 months

Cities: Core / National capitals

	Cities portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
	This article is on the project's core list.
	This article is supported by the project's national capital taskforce.

India: Cities / Delhi Top‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indian cities (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.
	This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Delhi is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 3, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 16, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
January 4, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
January 20, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 17, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 26, 2010	Featured article review	Demoted
July 18, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
January 22, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Former featured article

GAR

Delhi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No response to issues; thus delisting on basis of silent consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA made in 2012. Now has multiple unsourced claims that need to be addressed for this article to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess right now. I'm gonna try to remove blatantly bad sources and content out of the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CactiStaccingCrane, do you intend to continue? Also pinging potential contributors for their opinions: RegentsPark, Fowler&fowler, Vanamonde93, Kautilya3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2405:201:3013:E012:B90C:869F:7DD5:A9DA (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELHI NEW CHIEF MINISTER AATISHI .PLEASE CHANGE NAME

Done by User:Tamjeed Ahmed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word 'dearth' in the cuisine section.

I'm fairly certain dearth is the opposite of the intended meaning. Replace with ' profusion' perhaps. Duncanbadham (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it was the variety of cuisines and have rewritten it accordingly. The citations don't look particularly reliable but, I guess, that's the best we're going to get for cuisines. RegentsPark (comment) 23:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

undefined references

Hello Jagadeesh93! In this edit, you added a reference to a citation named "GSDP". But no such citation exists, so the article generates an error. Are you able to provide a citation for the figure that you entered so that the material can be verified and the error fixed? -- mikeblas (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raj-era sources (historical religious demography

Per my discussion with User:Fowler&fowler.

Original reply on user talk page: Decreeing sourced data is acceptable versus which is not based on one premise is faulty, given the very same Raj-era sources have been used in academia for decades, if not close to a century at this point in time.

There are thousands of papers, journal entries, media articles and other forms of encyclopedic material that reference census data from the Raj-era, many of which are sourced on a plethora of Wikipedia articles that either specifically delve into demographic-related topics or have sections that are dedicated to the demographic-related topics.

Proceeding under the premise regarding the the removal of every single mention of these topics, any historical demographic-related note, table, or refrence from the colonial period of South Asia would be required to be purged, not just from Wikipedia, but also from all of academia and various media sources as well as anything else which has been published across the public and private spheres since 1947.

This indicates a complete contrast regarding the constant addition of encyclopedic-related data and materials on a free, publically available website such as Wikipedia. Rather than proceeding with a complete purge, I would suggest a compromise that would benefit the reader(s): Any page that sources Raj-era censuses should include a disclaimer regarding the contemporary discussion surrounding potential inaccuracies. Any source(s) that can serve as further reading on the subject would also be helpful.

Regarding this page specifically, the censuses of 1951, 1961, and 1971 were also removed in the removal, which to my knowledge are not as controversial as the prior decadal censuses? Van00220 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this generic defense in recondite English prose to WT:INDIA where I have opened a thread to elicit the participation of a wider WP audience. And please do not edit war until a consensus appears there on what I consider to be spamming of a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS in anything but English prose. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]