Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chak 137


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Chak 137

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V. Possibly also a breach of WP:OR. Unverifiable - No mention found in any sources whatsoever. All that is found through Google are Wikipedia mirrors. Claritas (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - I think Chak is a postal code in India not a prefix to a town. Onefinalstep (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Chak" simply means "village", and many villages in Pakistani Punjab are known by numbers rather than names, so the article title is not in itself a reason for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  15:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are no grounds to delete this speedily, but unless it can be verified, a merge into Chak (village) may be needed. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The worst possible outcome would be a merge to Chak (village). If this can be verified it should be kept, but if not it should be deleted, as we should not have unverifiable content whether it is in a separate article or in a merged article. Chak (village) is a pretty poor article about an undoubtably notable topic which needs improving by adding more content about the general concept, rather than to become a dumping ground for unverifiable content. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Unsourced (odd as its supposidly famous), reads very OR and POV.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2010 (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.