Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barel

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. WP:HEY —SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barel

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

Unable to verify the existence of this village. The coordinates given are not in the state specified (Jammu and Kashmir); they are in Rajasthan. Rajasthan does have a place named Baler (containing the same five letters), very close to the coordinates, which is surrounded by rivers on three sides. There are also two places named Barel in the Barabanki district of the state of Uttar Pradesh, but I don't see any major rivers near there. Since it is not clear what place this article is intended to cover, and it contains inconsistent and unverified information, delete for now. There are already several mirror sites displaying information from this article. MB 19:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator The subject of this AFD at the time it was created was an unverified place in Kashmir. No one has substantiated existence of that village. However, the content of the article has since been entirely replaced with that about a different village of the same name in UP. Therefore, the reason for the AFD has been rendered obsolete. MB 14:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This might be just an incorrect coordinates issue. I also have doubts about existence of this town, and thought about nominating it for AfD. But it has been on wiki for almost 12-13 years. If nobody from Kashmir/delhi/Punjab or nearing areas have contested it, it might exist. Just moments ago this nomination, I initiated this: Talk:Kathua district#Is Barel town in Kathua district?. Also kindly see this: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Where_is_Barel.3F
We should wait till we get a proper confirmation of its non-existence. Not every small town of India has an online presence. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New comment/vote below. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ a town that we can't locate or even prove exists. Should be deleted unless somebody adds at least one reference. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am all in for deleting unencyclopaedic content, and/or hoaxes. Let it be a single statement, a paragraph, or entire article. I tried my best to delete this false article from wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latur Municipal Transport. But at that time, it was evident that Latur Municipal transport didnt exist.

We are talking about a small village from Kashmir. That area has extremely severe issues of all sorts. It has been like this since 1950s. Most of the Indians are still afraid to visit Kashmir, except for a few tourist spots. I believe a small village from that region wouldnt have an online presence. We shouldnt delete it till we get confirmation that it does not exist.

I would also like to point out that in last 12 years, nobody doubted its existence. Not even a single user posted on the article or on the talkpage that it does not exist, or where it is. If it was non existent, at the least there should have been a vandalism attempt stating "this town doesnt exist". But there is nothing of that sort either. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The policy is the opposite, we should delete unless there is confirmation that it does exist, per WP:VER. 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. MB 03:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per other comments, needs a reference to prove it exists. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the policy. But the history of the page should be preserved. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found some information about such a village in Uttar Pradesh: [1], [2] [3]. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: that's a good development. Maybe we can change the article completely to reflect it as a town from UP. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned at the top that there are two other places by this name in Uttar Pradesh. But there is nothing in this article in common except the name. If someone wants to write a new article about another Barel, that should not be entwined with this article. MB 19:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: i dont know how that can be a problem. We can start from the scratch. There is nothing much in the current article anyways. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and start over. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not irreparable. We can blow it up from the inside, and start there. All we have to do is to change a few words! —usernamekiran(talk) 21:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I updated it completely. Now there are no issues other than being orphan, and bare refs. I dont know know how to cite, so i couldnt do it. I will link the article from others tomorrow. I think there is no need to delete the article now.—usernamekiran(talk) 22:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article issues have been addressed, no reason to delete the new article. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks like a TNT job was done, it was reduced to a stub and it can grow properly from there. --Oakshade (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per WP:GEOLAND, 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. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now the article is untouchable as per WP:GEOLAND. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, 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. Bearcat (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2017 (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.