Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anakhanda


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Anakhanda

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It is not notable village of Bangladesh. There is reference why this is so notable. even it is not satisfy local interests - Jayanta Nath (Talk 16:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Populated places such as villages are inherently notable for Wikipedia purposes. Populated places such as villages are considered by many editors to be automatically notable for Wikipedia purposes, and I suspect that one would have to search back a long time before finding such a place whose article has been deleted at AfD. The nominator would have to establish that this is not even a village at all before I could support deletion of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Revised my comments based on Mandford's comments below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NPLACE reflects the usual outcome on cities and villages being notable. I can't establish that it exists, however.  I am concerned that the source that's appended to the article doesn't have an entry for Anakhanda, that the coordinates given don't link up to a place within a mile of a road, let alone a village, and Anakhanda doesn't show up on map searches.  I tried Ana Khanda and that didn't work either.  It sounds close enough to anaconda that it would be a great made-up name for a town if someone wanted to do that.  There's a Viper, Kentucky (41774), so I'm not ready to boo and hiss this one yet.  Mandsford 19:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The coordinates given were incorrect. I found a better source and fixed them. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's listed in the GEOnet Names Server (link), which indicates that it is a real village. As Metropolitan90 said, verified populated places are considered inherently notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in that it's verified. Minor point, but, technically, we have no policy of inherent notability on populated places or on high schools or on a lot of other things, but common outcomes (of which WP:NPLACE is one) is the de facto rule, the product of the debates of AfD, and I'm all in favor of those.  I should have quoted the language, which applies here "Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source".  Catalyst has taken care of the verification problem, hence it passes.  As the language shows, populated places presupposes something that would qualify as its own village, incorporated or unincorporated, rather than a neighborhood within a city.  Mandsford 22:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment-Dear All,In India there have 638,365 nos of village.. You are all mean to said that I can create 638,365 nos of village? I see that at WP:NPLACE Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source- Jayanta Nath (Talk 11:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, we're not running out of space. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And in answer to Jayanta's question, yes, one could create articles about any and all of the 638,365 villages in India, as long as their existence could be proven. Mandsford 13:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Actually I don't understand how  Notability policy and  "All villages are notable" statement are balanced.- Jayanta Nath (Talk 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and as a reply to the above comment: documentation of verifiable geographic topics such named populated settlements are generally considered within the scope of a general knowledge encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is.  Perhaps the term "notable" was not the best way to describe concept of inclusion guidelines.  If it makes more sense to you, think of notability as inclusion criteria instead.  When considered in this manner, any settled village would meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia as it is within the scope of topics that we should cover. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And, I'd add, a large part of it is Wikipedia strives for a more global view than one would find elsewhere on the internet, not only from all over the world but also from towns large and small that would otherwise be ignored. Systemic bias illustrates why we're very heavy on U.S.A. topics, along with the U.K., Canada, Australia, etc. and very light on everywhere else.  Most Wikipedians couldn't find Bangladesh on the globe and are unaware of how large it is (150,000,000 people live there) and probably couldn't care less.  The only problem I ever have with this is WP:NPLACE is misused by other persons who couldn't care less; we have some folks who think that they're contributing by mass producing articles whose content is limited to "_____ is a populated place in ____", but who have no intention of adding any more than that.  Their thrill comes from creating and then abandoning, and Wikipedia has its share of "deadbeat dads".   I don't see that pattern here, however.  Mandsford 18:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thank you all for clarification. Ha!!! feel relax, no one can delete any village related article of India and Bangladesh. Thanks again.- Jayanta Nath (Talk 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles about villages still have to comply with verifiability policy, so it's not strictly true that no one can delete them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2011 (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.