Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chak 17/14L


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Chak 17/14L
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. No relevant Ghits, villages in general do not contain numbers, and with over 2k people you would expect that somebody on the internet would have said something at some time. Suspected WP:HOAX. Firestorm Talk 17:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Comment. Villages in Pakistani Punjab do in general contain numbers - see Chak (village). Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verified villages are considered notable. Page 3 of this document verifies that this village exists and has a school, as does page 17 of this; this shows its mobile phone coverage; this, this and this tell us the zipcode of the village and there is news of a local funeral reported in the national press here. I don't think there's any doubt that this village exists, so it ahould have an article. The fact the local custom is to use numbers rather than names for villages shouldn't in any way change our usual standards for article inclusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per proof supplied by Bridger — sounds really weird, but given the proof, I'm not doubting its existence. This makes me think of 555 95472 in the old Peanuts cartoons — if you can number a person, you can number a village, I guess.  Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom. Given the evidence, it would appear that as though it does exist, however, incredible it sounds. I'm now recommending a speedy close as keep. Firestorm  Talk 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I was pretty skeptical from the title also when i first saw it, but that's apparently the way the government agency there is doing it. DGG (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2009 (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.