Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohipora

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. All villiages, towns etc are all kept per GEOLAND (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bohipora

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

Does not deserve to be at wikipedia because in my research I did not find a single perfect source. Aamir 121 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While research I found many websites have copy pasted from wikipedia because this article has been there for more than 5 years but it was survived by wrong references. It must be deletedQalchoun (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)— Qalchoun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Struck vote by blocked sock puppet. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and word trust or verified go along with each other. The article was created by mentioning wrong sources. The articles was sustaining because of those wrong references and being situated in far aeea it hardly caught wikipedias eye. So, I vote for deletion of the page Aamir 121 (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of articles better than these get delted because of poor sources and amazingly this page is exception. Should be deleted Ambivertt (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)— Ambivertt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong Delete As per WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamir 121 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC) — Aamir 121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Each individual can only add one "delete" post - it's fine to add additional comments, but not with a "delete" or "keep" or other "vote" (and also note that it is not actually a vote. --bonadea contributions talk 13:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~It does not exist at all. Tripnot (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)~~— Tripnot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Struck vote by blocked sock puppet. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does - see below. --bonadea contributions talk 13:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as fails pretty much every notability guideline, possibly doesn't exist. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Keep - notability assumed per WP:GEOLAND. Please have a look at the article's history - it has had sources showing that it does, in fact, exist; see e.g. this information. There are also different spellings of the name, as seen in the original version of the article. The article needs a lot of rewriting because it is in quite a poor state right now, and it might be the case that the village turns out not to be individually notable. The number of brand new accounts showing up at this AfD to !vote for its deletion, and the fact that some of the other SPA accounts have been removing information and references from it over the past few years doesn't help their case, though. --bonadea contributions talk 13:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my !vote per the discussion linked by clpo13 below. --bonadea contributions talk 17:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondea I think you have not contemplated about the thing that the referenence shown were wrong and did not support the villageAamir 121 (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were certainly not all high quality references and at least one of them is apparently about a different place, but in my view and based on this I believe that the references that have now been restored do seem to support notability. --bonadea contributions talk 14:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mam, matter is not of referrences alone . The fact is why village like this will be on wiki which is of no importance? Then here are almost 7000 villages . Will wikipedia enlist them all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamir 121 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on their behavior, I am going to block Tripnot and Qalchoun as sockpuppets of Aamir 121. I defer judgment on Ambivertt, who is perhaps more like a meatpuppet. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. It appears to exist as a place, which is enough for Wikipedia. clpo13_(talk) 15:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per wp:GEOLAND, or merge to a list. Do we have an explicit guideline about villages ... there are hundreds of thousands in South Asia ... I personally think they're notable as much as any high school is. But probably it would be better to create List of villages in Kupwara district and cover this in a section or a table-row there. Organize the list of villages by "block", and split the list if/when it grows too large. By the way in the article there is mention of fixing the "bund" or "bunk" of the river, is "banks of the river" or "riverbank" what is intended? --do ncr am 18:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'bund' means a form of flood defence, doncram. A concrete bundh is referred to in the article about the village here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's not in some dictionaries, but then I find my way to "Bundhs are special types of perennial and seasonal tanks or impoundments where riverine conditions are simulated during monsoon months. The bundhs are ordinarily of two categories, viz., a perennial bundh commonly known as “Wet bundh” and a seasonal one called “Dry bundh”, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0555e/t0555e08.htm. --do ncr am 19:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any specific guideline or policy, but I did find this old village pump discussion suggesting there's long-standing consensus that villages are notable, so long as there's evidence they exist. clpo13_(talk) 19:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Referenced as an Indian village (Bohipora or Buhipora): http://www.census2011.co.in/data/village/58-buhi-pora-jammu-and-kashmir.html. Vipinhari || talk 19:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vipinhari. The place is real, although the article needs to be cleaned up. Bradv 20:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable human settlement that is notable per WP:GEOLAND. Wikipedia requires that sources be reliable, not perfect. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There are thousands of villages out there, and having an article for every single village makes no sense. Furthermore, IMO, this article does not meet the Notability guideline. Wasiq 9320 (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. This place is included in official census data, and government-recognized places are notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GEOLAND. It's a real population center. There are "thousands of villages out there" just as there are thousands of towns in the US and UK of smaller population yet we make zero effort to delete those. This is looking like WP:BIAS. --Oakshade (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2016 (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.