Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilaji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no reasonable possibility that the outcome will be anything other than a consensus to keep. BD2412 T 01:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nilaji

[edit]

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

Nilaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see why a town of less than 100 people should have its own Wikipedia article. Fails WP:GNG Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised by looking at the revision history that an editor removed significant portions of this article. I think this XFD still stands however, given that before the radical changes, it had just one sentence stating it was a town in X location. Feel free to give your thoughts however. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note I have undone an inappropriate procedural close. The nominator had already specifically addressed the stated reason for it; and the rest was a WP:SUPERVOTE (GEOLAND is countered by both WP:NRVE and WP:5P5). This does not otherwise meet any of the speedy keep criteria; and should be discussed per the usual standards. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    special:diff/1091191270. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    copying my response from my user talk page: "Proper closing statement doesnt mean supervote, there is a big difference. My close was justified, I am not asking for reinstating it though. Also see: WP:SK#NOT, and WP:SNOW." —usernamekiran (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND #1, the village is populated and legally recognised and is presumed notable thus we create an article. The ref I added [1] and the population from Census verifies the existence — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to add, the Census district handbook I've added, the pdf from [2] has two Nilaji villages: one in Raibag C.D. and one in Belgaum C.D.. The Deccan Herald article verifies the one in Raibag taluk. Thus I changed the article to represent about the one in Raibag taluk and thus added data respectively. If secondary sources could be uncovered for Nilaji in Belgaum C.D., then another article could be created for that at "Nilaji, Belgaum taluk" and this one moved to "Nilaji, Raibag taluk" — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is literally WP:BUTITEXISTS, which completely misses the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This place meets WP:GEOLAND per above -- Ab207 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Belagavi district or Dabify per Dax's finding; as a WP:ATD since there is no WP:SIGCOV about this place. "meets GEOLAND" for locations is as unconvincing of a rationale as "meets NSPORTS" is for sports bios. No subject is inherently notable; and if the only thing we have about a place is its population from the census, then that is not really enough to warrant an article here. Even GEOLAND is clear (Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Sources) that On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability.; but of the sources presented, none "describe the subject": we have census tables (which are routine coverage to be expected for literally anywhere) and a trivial mention of the town's name (but no coverage of it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with reliable sources already present, the article meets WP:GEOLAND. We have a precedent to keep articles under GEOLAND as long as there is even one reliable source proving it is a legally recognised place, regardless of population and coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems flatly at odds with WP:NRVE and the whole of Wikipedia notability guidelines and common practice at AfD (including WP:BUTITEXISTS: A related phenomenon is the fallacy of entitlement: the notion that mere existence automatically entitles someone or something to a Wikipedia article). It is also a "precedent" which is not documented as such in the guidelines. A presumption of notability, as afforded by GEOLAND, is rebuttable. The lack of SIGCOV here speaks for itself. I will additionally note that the town's population, of a few thousand, is comparable to that of the average US census tract - and those are specifically not even given the presumption of being notable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WHATABOUT, and WP:BURO. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it profoundly ironic that you would cite NOTBURO after having made an argument that We have a precedent to keep articles under GEOLAND as long as there is even one reliable source proving it is a legally recognised place, regardless of population and coverage... I similarly find you flippantly dismissing my argument by incorrectly claiming it is a "what about X" argument to be equally ironic and unconvincing when your own argument is "similar pages get kept per GEOLAND", without addressing at all the fundamental issue here, which is that this particular page fails WP:SIGCOV and other community-endorsed requirement (which a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can simply not make irrelevant). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly go through the current wording of WP:SNG: "Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG." It's abundantly clear that places which are evaluated to meet GEOLAND, do not have to meet GNG again. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these are part of WP:N; and WP:NRVE states, unequivocally, that No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. Even GEOLAND says quite simply and clearly that sources need to do more than just trivially mention the subject: This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.; and sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability. Mere existence is not enough (Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information; or a directory), you still need sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. And none has been presented here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But this article doesn't depend on "maps and tables for establishing topic notability", it has a reliable source [3] proving it is a legally recognised census town. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is verifiable evidence that the subject is "Populated, legally recognized place" per GEOLAND. We are using census sources for that, rather than mere maps and tables -- Ab207 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is census data but a collection of statistical tables? Again, your reading of GEOLAND is faulty. Simply because it is a "Populated, legally recognized place" does not mean it gets an article automatically. It is only "presumed" to be notable, and presumptions are not absolutes; and WP:N and GEOLAND both make clear that simple, mere existence, without sources which describe the subject instead of simply mentioning, is not enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the lead of WP:N, "presumption of notability" applies to both GNG and SNG equally but you seem to be misconstructing it as a preference for GNG over SNG. Sure, you are still within your right to propose a valid merge/redirect target, and let the consensus decide. But portraying an SNG as some kind of lesser criteria in evaluating notability is what I object to. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the problem is that the presumption of GEOLAND is being here treated as some form of absolute; despite that not being what the word "presume" means in English, and despite the fact GEOLAND itself is clear that you actually do need to have more coverage than mere proof of existence. You seem to be misconstruing GEOLAND as being an automatic-notability-pass. Emphatically, it isn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: Hi. I apologise for my previous brief comment, I was on mobile. I am sorry it sounded a little curt. I can see where you are coming from, and I do understand you. Most of Indian, and south asian cities do not get significant coverage unless they are tourist spot, industrial hub/metropolitan, or historically significant. That would make at least 50% of such cities fail GNG. We are here to build an online encyclopaedia, we do not have limitations of hard-paper. In essence, WP:NRVE, GNG and other policies/guidelines are created to avoid spamming/advertising. When it comes to towns (article creation), marketing/advertising is not a concern. If somebody tries that, it can be handled on case-by-case basis. We do have essays Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability, and Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, I have often brought up these essays in AfD about people, and organisations. But when it comes to legally recognised census towns, and species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept − WP:NSPECIES. There are some topics which are generally kept/considered notable as long as they are legally/technically recognised, and has one reliable source verifying the subject's recognition. We also have Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable. Simply put, sometimes we have to bypass a policy/guideline to maintain the spirit of wikipedia, and for greater good. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We are still an encyclopedia, which means that we are a summary of knowledge; a summary of existing sources. If the only existing sources about a topic merely confirm its existence, or are wide-ranging all-inclusive catalogues or databases (or, censuses), then we simply don't have enough material from which to write an article. Something which simply says "X is a town in [region]" is nothing more than an uninformative catalogue listing. If a guideline says "this might be notable", but there is no evidence it is notable, then it isn't; in the same way that someone presumed innocent of a crime (as per due process) does not remain innocent once they have been found guilty. Of course, as an encyclopedia, we still want to be informative, hence why the redirect (so people still have a clue where the place is); but that is not a reason to have an article when there is nothing to be written about the subject. WP:NSPECIES (and any criteria which leads to practical interpretations of "exists therefore is notable", as how you seem to be interpreting GEOLAND to be) seems similarly problematic to the previous versions of WP:NSPORTS (which has, finally, after way too much effort, been mostly updated to correspond more closely with what actually warrants an encyclopedic article) in that it encourages lots of articles which are merely glorified database entries (and an encyclopedia is not a database); but that's a debate for another place and time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, there are a few SNGs I would like to see deprecated, including beauty pageant winners, but not geoland, and definitely not the NSPECIES. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then stop arguing that we should have articles about stuff we have nothing to write about. :) Anyway, I think we've both made our views abundantly clear and there's no point further continuing this here on this page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    yup :-D but this is the reason why we have SNGs in the first place. We cant apply same notability criteria to everything. But like you said, thats a discussion for another venue. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just remembered another AfD where GNG vs SNG was debated against each other: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roshan Meka — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per RandomCanadian if that's an option, otherwise Delete (since there is no article other than this for the topic, does WP:DAB apply?) FWIW there is some coverage in regional languages, but nothing more than bare mentions. There are at least four more villages by the same name though - one each in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, two in Orissa. I understand the expansive GEOLAND/SNG interpretations, but if there is no proper source for a topic, no article can be written. Hemantha (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DAB can applied as long as the term is mentioned in any particular article (MOS:DABMENTION) -- Ab207 (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The mentions shown by search appear to not be from any legitimate content, but from the nav template {{Settlements_in_Belagavi_district}}. It is hard to be sure from search hits alone, but a temporary removal from the template is an easy way to test. Hemantha (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Presumably the places/villages consider as notable. Meets WP:GEOLAND. BrutBrother (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GEOLAND explicitly requires sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it [to] establish notability. As such, this doesn't meet GEOLAND. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is unclear if the discussion is currently focused on the village of 7,000 people in Karnataka that is the current version, or the hijacked article about a village of less than 100 people in Maharashtra. Please focus discussion solely on the former. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DaxServer, there is no requirement to have a certain population per WP:BIG. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Small, but viable article (and yes LaundryPizza03, I am looking at the Karnataka village). SpinningSpark 20:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place. Also keep per WP:5, point #1, "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". It makes no sense to dumb down the encyclopedia regarding legally recognized places, which would essentially provide unnecessary and damaging holes in the encyclopedia regarding geographic places. While it states in the Sources section of WP:NGEO, "sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability", this does not nullify or take precedence over point #1 of WP:GEOLAND. I ought to know, because I was one of the users who worked to clarify WP:NGEO and to get it promoted to a notability guideline back in the day. The spirit of NGEO is that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." North America1000 02:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This officially recognized population center could have less than 10 people and still be considered notable as there's an inherent notability with population centers as well as WP:GEOLAND and WP:5PILLARS. Oakshade (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per note on my Talk. Formatted note TK immediately below
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Note that at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) it does not state that Populated, legally recognized places require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That particular requirement is for Populated places without legal recognition, under point #2 of WP:GEOLAND, where it states that said places are "considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG". However, this stipulation is not in place for Populated, legally recognized places, which is covered under point #1 of WP:GEOLAND, nor should it be, because this was not the intention when the page was finalized as a guideline.
Per WP:5, Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. I was one of the people that helped to develop WP:NGEO further and to get it promoted to a guideline page. If people want to change the guideline page, it should be done at the guideline talk page, rather than at individual AfD discussions.
Above in this discussion, a user has created a synthesis of wording at the guideline page, stating, "GEOLAND explicitly requires sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it [to] establish notability". However, GEOLAND does not state this at all. Rather, it states there, under the Sources section, "sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability." This statement is within the context of the preceding sentence stating, "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability..." This general, generic statement regarding sources other than tables and maps does not magically override everything else on the page, nor does it nullify point #1 of WP:GEOLAND. It is just general guidance, nothing more. Point #1 certainly does not "explicitly" state that significant coverage is a requirement at all, not even in the slightest. Point #2 does. Point #2 is not point #1. Nilaji is a legally recognized populated place, and as such, per point #1 of WP:GEOLAND, such places are typically presumed to be notable. It is as simple as that. North America1000 02:11, 11 June 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nilaji&oldid=1109731734"