Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotrayrain


 * 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. Due to not meeting the verifiability policy. If anyone wants it userfying let me know. Davewild (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hotrayrain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not clear what the article is about. Might be a town or village, but Google does not return any hits. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also, see these files File:Fruits of Hotrayrain..jpg, :, File:Area of Hotrayrain..jpg.  JT dale Talk ~ 19:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep Per WP:INDAFD article about this sort of Indian-Pakistani villages generally get zero coverage online but it may have offline coverage. I will assume good faith that the village exists and hence passes WP:GEOLAND.  Jim Car ter  06:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep in draft space or move to a better translation - it's clearly a place (a hillside village according to the image at right) and this draft might give some insight. Perhaps the name is an English translation and so doesn't appear elsewhere. Either way, it would seem to both exist and be populated, thus passing WP:GEOLAND.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Userfy – per Stalwart111. The draft is on the creator's User page, which is trying to put it in Category:Villages_in_Punjab,_Pakistan. It needs that information, plus a source. Putting it back in draft space should give the creator time to work on it and decide the name. We could also suggest asking for advice at the Teahouse on getting it into shape and including the pictures, which are great. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – I asked at User_talk:Sitush, and apparently there is no online source for Punjab village names. I tidied it up some and added an infobox and category. This may be the best that we can do, so I am changing my !vote to keep. I'll leave a note at the creator's User page and ask if he can add coordinates. If he can, a map should appear showing the location, like the other villages that use this infobox. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy. I suppose the article has some potential, and Stalwart has shown that it exists. However, it is definitely not ready for the mainspace. -- Biblio worm  05:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Keep. Due to the improvements to the article, I'll change my !vote to keep. -- Biblio  worm  16:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I had put up a word at Shahmukhi Punjabi WP to an admin and a long time contributor. He has not heard of the name. In any case, it should be verified by at least one source.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears inhabited. Editor is clearly intent on improving the article and adding more information. -- I eat BC Fish (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:V. Unless we can come up with a source that confirms that this village exists and is in Punjab, the verifiability policy mandates deletion. Good faith is not good enough in this case.  Sandstein   08:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Week keep: recent article by a recent editor. Apparently inhabited place and hence apparently notable. Renominate in 3 months if no improvement. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sandstein above. I've searched for any information about this supposed place, using as many alternative transliterations as I can think of, and have turned up exactly nothing. WP:V is not negotiable, and if there are no sources that support the very existence of this place (even a dot on a map or a database entry), it's just whistling in the wind to claim that the article "passes WP:GEOLAND". I've participated in a number of AfDs dealing with places for which absolutely no sources can be found; these are almost always deleted. (Of course, if anyone can provide evidence of the village's existence, I will reconsider my !vote.) Deor (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, inhabited places are generally notable, but that statement presupposes that we have decent sources that verify the existence of the place. In this case, there doesn't appear to be much in the way of sources to prove that it's a real place that goes by that name.  My own gut feel is that this probably is a real place, but as pointed out above, WP:V is not negotiable, and this article fails it.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep Delete until it's verified. - It does appear to be an inhabited population center. It ain't New York, but it's still a village.--Oakshade (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:V. Settlements are notable if they can be verified to exist. There is no trace of anything by this name outside Wikipedia. Even if we assume the author's good faith, the author needs to produce evidence in any language that the subject is real. Even in Pakistan, a village of 4,000 people should be listed somewhere. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete until WP:V can be met, keep the moment it can. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for both WP:V as well as WP:PEACOCK. "Common fruits and vegetables...can be seen in every garden"? "a beautiful view in every season"? The only part of this article that's salvageable is information we can't verify. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that this article is totally unverifiable. Since the article is created by a brand new user so I think we should assume good faith and should give him a chance to add at least one source. So IMO we should move the article to the creator's userspace and help him create the article.  What you all say?  Jim Car ter  11:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no particular objection to userification; it might be that there are source in Pahari or Punjabi which obviously I wouldn't be able to find. But it should not be in the mainspace until such sources are added.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC).
 * Just as I would support retention in draft space, I would be comfortable with retention in user space. It's not ready for mainspace (that seems clear) but allowing it to be worked on seems like a good idea.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not opposed in principle, but if no source could be found so far, what's the likelihood of the user finding a reliable source later?  Sandstein   12:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We are searching for sources in English so far. But it is possible that there maybe sources in Punjabi, Urdu and Pahari language. And from my experience, I can say that this sort of villages get coverage in offline sources and Government databases. The author is familiar with the subject, so it is possible that they can find sources later.  Jim Car ter  16:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still for deletion per Fuhghettaboutit below. Too unlikely that somebody will source this very poor draft stub.  Sandstein   07:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment, the author has uploaded this image to Commons which includes some road signs. Unfortunately they are not readable from the image quality, but if he  can provide the text we may be able to resolve this.  The photographs from the author certainly prove that this village exists.  What has not been verified is that it is called what he says it is called and it is located where he claims it is located.  There is a draft of this article at Draft:Hotrayrain.  I suggest anything in the article not currently in the draft and any cleanup that has been done here be merged into the draft before deleting. SpinningSpark 17:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete until the verifiability concerns can be resolved through adequate sourcing. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to his Sandbox since he's working on it, Personally I'm not sure if it's a complete hoax but if it's kept in the sandbox for the time being then no harm done. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete - A11/G3  - There's only 212 results on Google and other than WP and mirror sites there's absolutely nothing to even verify it's existence at all .... I also believe those images (on right) are all of some other area.... (I appreciate some areas aren't known but come on how can this not be known at all ?).. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 03:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well CSD'ing that worked wonders!, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 05:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be right and this will turn out to be a hoax, but it was an extreme case of lack of AGF to give the user a templated hoax warning at this stage while the AFD is still being discussed. It may not be so surprising that sources are not turning up in English.  The language of the region is Pahari and it is written in the Devanagari script.  The name given sounds to me like it may be a DIY translation rather than the proper English transliteration (if there even is one) so unless you search with the proper Devangari script you are going to come up with Jack shit and not prove anything at all.  SpinningSpark 11:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which I've reverted (I will admit I shouldn't of gave the warning at all), I simply assumed it would still be in the results with perhaps the correct name next to it or something ....– Davey 2010  Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 15:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Verifiability is non-negotiable. We cannot have an article that cannot be sourced.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – In theory yes. In point of fact, we have many similar articles with no sources. The metadata for two of the pictures shows that they were taken on 13 December with a smartphone in Pakistan, two days before they were uploaded to Commons. So I'm thinking they are probably genuine. The article was created on 18 December, five days later. I'm thinking a college student who took these pictures on a short visit back home. It would be good to have the village's name in the original language, plus the name of the (probably offline) source that indicates it exists, plus the coordinates. The coordinates may not be simple, since even with a GPS smartphone the village itself may not have smartphone service. Anyway, instead of deleting it, I think it should at least be userfied to give the author the chance to add this information. Apparently the user has two accounts: User talk:Wasif0909, where I left a message asking for this information, and User talk:Wasif09. He hasn't replied on either so far. I'm guessing he's pretty confused right now. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I file that under "any content once added is sacrosanct" (for some reason). It ignores all pragmatics. This stub took ~5-10 minutes to write, and by all measures it fails our most fundamental policy. We could all write sourced stubs in the same time. Is it possible this is a real place, and that the person who made four edits ten days ago and never returned will come back, and provide a correct transliteration so we can find sources, if they even exist, or will source it themselves, after they posted this, like so many others before them, without taking any heed of our basic policies that attempt to ensure good and trustworthy content? Sure. It is likely? Not at all. Yes, we have tons of unsourced content. That's not a reason to allow more, it's a badge of shame that needs fixing. Here, we have numerous experienced editors who've actually looked for sources and not found them, and yet somehow we're talking about keeping this. Not enforcing verifiability with teeth, through some pragmatic policy to delete if sources are asked for and none are added is how we've dug our hole so deep. Keeping articles where we've actually looked for sources and can't find any on the off chance a poster might come back is jumping in the hole and burying ourselves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – If you look at the author's struggles to create this article (rejected at AfC, User page deleted by an admin) I think it took more than 10 minutes. And now we have an editor at Commons who wants to delete the hillside image, citing this AfD and calling it a hoax. I don't know exactly what criteria they have over there, but I don't think it's a hoax and I'm going to try and save it. I want to put it on my own user page, just as a reminder that we really need to do better in helping newbies understand our sourcing requirements. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2015 (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.