Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaitabare


 * 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 no consensus. Closing this with a no consensus result, with no prejudice against speedy renomination as separate, individual deletion discussions for each place. At this time it is clear that this bundled nomination has included too many entries that can be comfortably handled, relative to the discourse of the discussion, how the discussion has transpired, and how it is coming across from participants that some entries may be notable while others may not be. One may wonder why this is being closed with as no consensus with all of the "keep" !votes present. Most of the keep !votes later on in the discussion are addressing single entries in the nomination. Some !votes have stated that a procedural keep is in order, while others have stated "delete all". The discussion has broken down into commentary about individual entries, and at this time participants are not addressing the nomination as a whole, which is another factor that has turned the discussion into a WP:TRAINWRECK of sorts. North America1000 23:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Aaitabare

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am nominating this and all other articles in Category:Populated places in BayarbanKeroun VDC nepal as bad faith trolling/hoax creations from User:Bayarban,keroun hamro gau. Also nominating other categories, redirects and articles created by the same user under this username or via socks.
 * populated places in bayarbankeroun vdc nepal
 * (Redirect)
 * (Redirect)
 * (Redirect)
 * (Redirect)
 * (Redirect)
 * (Redirect)
 * (Redirect)
 * (Redirect)
 * (Redirect)
 * (Redirect)
 * (Redirect)
 * (Redirect)

The titles likely represent real neighbourhoods in and around Bayarban VDC in Morang District. But these are not places that meet WP:NGEO. The articles themselves follow the template of VDC articles created by User: Encyclopædius (eg. Bayarban), and include nonsensical modifications. Note the populations of these places: Bhausabari has 1082 people, but so does Bihibare. Aaitabare, Bargachhi, Dumrighat and Ghaletol have 10802 people (one digit inserted into the previous figure) and Harakpur has 1080 people (trailing 2 removed from the previous figure). Aaitabare, Bargachhi, Dumrighat and Ghaletol have 2082 households, Bihibare has 208 and Bhausabari has 202 (same pattern as before). The talkpage of the user gives some hint as to why they might have done this.
 * Articles in Category:Populated places in BayarbanKeroun VDC nepal
 * Aaitabare
 * Bargachhi
 * Bhausabari
 * Bihibare
 * Daleli
 * Dumrighat
 * Ghaletol
 * Harakpur
 * Hattidubba

I am nominating Ramailo, Nepal created by their sock User:Mero ramailo, and the redirect Ramailo which was created by the same user with nonsensical claims but was later redirected to the former. Ramailo is not one of the VDCs listed in the sources. Also nominating Bayarban Keroun which is a duplicate of Bayarban but there is no evidence that it's a valid alternative name to keep it as a redirect (if anyone would like to find evidence, I have no objections). Bayarbankeroun is another duplicate, later redirected. For lack of evidence that it is a valid alt name, nominating this redirect as well.
 * Other places (articles and redirects)


 * Schools (private and public)

I nominate Shree Janasewa Higher Secondary School created by one of the socks. It is unsourced; I don't feel like looking for sources to legitimise a troll's work. I have no strong objections to keeping this though, as the lead image indicates it's real. Also nominating Triveni Baljagat English School created by the same editor which needs to meet WP:NORG but is currently unsourced (no evidence that it's real from what's given in the article). Also nominating Pearl Academy English School for the same reason.

I am starting to get lost, so I am hitting publish. I will clean it up and add further information as I dig it up. Any assistance would be welcome. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * These places are not among the old VDCs or the newly created municipalities, and there are no legally recognised villages below that level. So, no, they do not meet GEOLAND. Notice how the same user also created Kanepokhari but I have not nominated it because that name was later given to a real municipality. Also, the new divisions were first recommended in 2017 (Kathmandu Post) while these articles were all created in 2012. I did not say the titles were fakes. There are places (sometimes multiple, sometimes in other countries too) with these names, but the article content is fabricated (as I've shown in my nom) and there are no places in Morang District with these names that meet GEOLAND. Look at the history of the Kanepokhari article. It was created by this user with fake content, claiming that it was a VDC (the lowest legally recognised unit). Another user later converted it into a municipality article in 2017 and said in the edit summary There was no Kanepokhari VDC but only Village. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I recently came across something similar. An Indian sock farm that was churning out dozens of bullshit geo stubs. Some of the places probably existed but much of the content was just made up and the sources were copy pasted from one article to another. Apparently some people think geostubs are a low risk way of pushing up their edit count without being detected. This junk is probably a good case for TNT. Mccapra (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah NGEO is the easiest to crack, isn't it? India has some 600,000 villages, and there isn't even a definitive structure/hierarchy/list as we have with Nepal, from what I can tell from their administrative divisions article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep (procedural), what a dog's breakfast of an afd! nominator has bundled numerous (20+?) articles together, has included categories, wrong forum! should be listed at Categories for discussion, and included a redirect, again wrong forum, should be listed at Redirects for discussion, on top of this they allege that the editor who created the majority of these articles also used socks to create some of these, a serious allegation, but hasn't bothered following this up at Sockpuppet investigations, on top of this they more or less admit how rediculous/unworkable this afd is with the struck out statement above "I am starting to get lost, so I am hitting publish. I will clean it up and add further information as I dig it up. Any assistance would be welcome." umm, no, an afd is not an article that can be edited/improved, you should never have "hit publish" in its present state. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is crossed out because it is no longer relevant. It was relevant when I was writing the nom in Twinkle, and it ended up being more extensive that I had in mind when I started and I knew it was gonna be a mess when I hit publish, which I needed to do to properly organise and format the nom. I don't see how having one category in the mix compromises the integrity so much that it has to be redone. If everyone feels that seriously about having a cat at AFD, I can withdraw the cat nom. It will be easily dealt with later on. I don't think redirects need a separate RfD. It's in the mainspace and fits the bundling. The point about the sock allegation did occur to me as something that might be a problem, since the justification for the bundling partly depends on that being true. I am not sure SPI takes stale cases. Do you know that it does? Perhaps, I should post at AN about this?! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep. These appear to be legitimate settlements and the nomination is an utter mess in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I bring up 10 hoax articles to attention and all everyone cares about is whether I got the procedures right? I have withdrawn the nomination of the category. Do with the articles whatever you please. It's not like anyone finds those articles anyway. I give up trying to convince anyone of anything. The facts are all there if anyone cares to read. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all. None of these are notable are most of them are either blatant hoaxes or so incompetently implemented as to be indistinguishable from hoaxes. To be honest you would have been better off just putting a WP:PROD on each one, but it's too late for that now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * and see Aaitabare and Ramailo, Nepal!†  Encyclopædius  20:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete all, in agreement with Jonathan A Jones. I oppose the "procedural keep" reasoning, which is in direct conflict with WP:NOTCOURT. PJvanMill (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep If Coolabahapple says this is a dog's breakfast, I say this is a cup of hot fat with a hair in it. The website that these are sourced to doesn't work and I can't find anything else in English, but a simple search shows that Ramailo and Keroun should not be deleted as they're not hoaxes, and schools are specifically exempted from WP:NORG. At least some of these should definitely be kept. I'm happy to go back and !vote delete on individual articles which are clearly unverifiable, but what we have here is a bunch of stubs which look to me to pass WP:NGEO and have incorrect populations. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * At least some of these should definitely be kept I would contest that. Schools may be exempt from WP:NORG, but they are not exempt from notability altogether. Just the Nepal census as a source is not enough for notability, either. I've looked at each of these articles, and they all fall hopelessly short of significant coverage. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * An official census meets a legally defined place per WP:NGEO, which is one of the lowest notability standards we have. Schools do need coverage, but the school notability needs to be discussed on the merits, and not mixed in with other articles. The main reason for this nomination are hoaxes and failing WP:NGEO, and because at least some of them pass WP:NGEO and at least some of them are clearly not hoaxes, we can't bulk delete all of these. I would be in favour of deleting those that absolutely cannot be verified, or having a second AfD, but this one is badly flawed. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I nominated 10 articles as hoaxes; all of them assert 4 basic facts: what they are, where they are, how many households they have and how many people are in them. All articles are correct that those are places in Morang District. The rest are blatant lies. None of them are VDCs, and both the households and population are blatant fabrications. They don't meet NGEO as legally recognised places because VDCs are the lowest levels with legal recognition, but the notability doesn't figure into it when 3 out the only 4 things they have are blatant lies. I added three more articles that don't meet WP:V into that list because they came from the same user who can't be AGFed to get correct content without WP:V. I obviously messed up how bundling works at AFD, but I didn't mess up the things I could have foreseen. Bundling explicitly cites creation of the same user as reason to bundle. Someone taking one article and creating a completely different article under the same title doesn't change the fact that the article I nominated was effectively deleted in the process, and the rest of them still exist with 3 blatant fabrications out of the only four claims they make. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with deleting articles on legitimate subjects is that if a new editor decides to restart them they see a forbidding warning on a salmon background saying something like:
 * A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.
 * That would discourage the editor from contributing. Better to clear away the inaccurate information, and perhaps use Google Maps or geonames to get reasonable coordinates. That leaves a stub that can be expanded. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , that would be a problem with all deletions that we do; we do them nonetheless. Nobody watches these kind of articles, and things like these go unfixed forever. But, if we do have editors like you willing to put in the effort to fix them, that's clearly a better outcome than deletion, and I have only thanks to offer you. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a village named Aitabare, Bayarban at 26.64041°N, 87.49958°W. This site confirms existence, but with different coords. Mindat gives the same wrong coords. According to this site the Jankalyan Secondary School is in the village. The Aaitabare article is probably meant to represent this village, but the coordinates are wrong, and the population is nothing to do with anything as the nominator points out, so the article as it stands is useless. I would not assume bad faith though, and perhaps some of the articles could be recovered if there are interested editors. Best would be to withdraw this omnibus AfD and start individual AfDs that refer back to the discussion here. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Aaitabare, which now redirects to Aitabare (both spellings are used), which has been expanded enough to clearly meet WP:NGEO. This without prejudice to the above comment on splitting up this AfD into separate discussions for each article. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Aaitabare per the great expansion of Aymatth2.† Encyclopædius  20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Ramailo, Nepal, a valid stub. I will clean it up. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, thanks to for the above ..... and another bundled afd begins to unravel. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ditto below.....Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Ramailo, Nepal per the great expansion of Aymatth2.†  Encyclopædius  20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Janasewa Secondary School, which seems to be notable enough for a secondary school affiliated with the Higher Secondary Education Board. The student numbers seem a bit confused, but I am sure that can be sorted out. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Janasewa Secondary School, per the great expansion of Aymatth2.† Encyclopædius  20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep Batch AfDs should only be used for sets of articles that are substantially similar to each other. There are way too many disparate articles here, and just too many articles period. Nominating these in smaller batches will make things much smoother. &minus;&minus;&minus; Cactus Jack 🌵 06:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Bhausabari I fixed it up. Seems to meet WP:NGEO. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Bihibare I fixed it up. Seems to meet WP:NGEO. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Daleli A real enough place, but not much information about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Harakpur. Seems to meet WP:NGEO now. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.