Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohar Chowk 8


 * 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) The consensus of this discussion is that the village of Gohar (chak 8) exists as a geographical location and needs its own article. Darkspots (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gohar Chowk 8

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No context and not clear whether it is about a person or a place.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:PN.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 12:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think it's patent nonsense, it's just very, very poorly written. ghits were this article and random articles containing the words "Gohar" and "Chowk", so it seems to fail on notability as well as being original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its obviosly about a geographic location, and therefore inherently notable. I began a cleanup on the article. I wish I was able to do more work on the article but its sources are obviouly in a foreign language. Please take note of WP:BIAS. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.   — brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Not so sure about your logic there, Brewcrewer, as I was not able to find any sources that actually used the words "Gohar Chowk 8" together as one place name, I think this probably fails on verifiability, but maybe if we could find the author or someone who speaks/reads the relevant language we could get some clarity... Beeblbrox (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * comment The article seems more about 2 people than a place.Clearly a reader will not understand what it is about.Same not able to find any sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the two people take up a disproportionate amount of the article, but as any stub, it takes time to take to take the correct form, etc. The vast majority of geographic location articles include a section of its notable residents.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the two people take up a disproportionate amount of the article, but as any stub, it takes time to take to take the correct form, etc. The vast majority of geographic location articles include a section of its notable residents.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This shows that it exists as a village (although I'm sure the inhabitants wouldn't like it to be their main claim to fame!). The Chak/Chowk stuff comes from a Punjabi custom of using numbers for villages - see Chak (village). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ok ok, Keep per the improvements to the article, thanks for the effort guys! Beeblbrox (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2008 (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.