Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruhu

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. As everyone says. However, will one of the people involved go add some kind of source to at least prove existence. & renominate any one of them where they cannot find it. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhu

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

All articles are unverified, unreferenced redundant content forks which duplicates the information on the page Anantnag. In the vast majority of cases, the only content of these articles is that the village exists. I left a message on the creator's talk page after nominating a number of the articles for deletion via WP:PROD. The creator removed the PROD without explaining why in either the edit summaries or the talk pages. These new articles are not constructive. They all use a similar introduction that states the subject village is one of 105 such villages in the area. There is no need for each of these 105 villages to have an article of it's own. N4 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons above:

You won't believe how much of a pain it was to do that. All the best. N4 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Irrespective of their seemingly small sizes and seemingly templated prose formats, we keep articles of villages where a reliable source is present to prove the village/settlement exists. I and others would add a # opposite all the articles listed above for the ones where reference of its existence is noted in the article. Nominator's mass-AfD is non-constructive and not the creator's creation of articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noting that, per WP:NPLACE, a common outcome is that articles on even small villages are usually kept if the village's existence can be verified by a reliable source. The backing for this is, as far as I know, the essay WP:GEOLAND --Mark viking (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These all appear to be verifiable settlements, and AfD precedent has been that all verifiable settlements are considered notable. If any of them are unverifiable, they should be nominated on an individual basis rather than as a batch nomination, as these sorts of nominations aren't really useful for debating the merits of each article individually. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, if they can be verified in a reliable source, and note that the last two are rivers, not villages. Also note that an Indian "village" sometimes has a population in the thousands, compared to United States "cities" with populations of 173 (eg Fifty-Six, Arkansas). PamD 21:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, after trying to stub-sort those two rivers and finding it difficult to work out whether they're in India or Pakistan, I'm having my doubts about them ... but it would be better to have individual AfDs about each article, not a blanket nomination as we have here. Keep the lot for now, without prejudice to individual AfDs for any individual articles (including probably the two unsourced, unmapped, rivers). PamD 21:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I took a look at one of the articles, Sadura. It is a functional stub with a map, a fact about the village (it has a railway station), coordinates, and two references. It would be nice to have the population. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, All has been said in earlier comments. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:34, 18 February 2014 (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.