Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kot Hasan Khan


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Kot Hasan Khan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article only had one reference when I started to copyedit it, and the reference referred to Hafizabad city instead of Kot Hasan Khan. In fact, most of the article talks about Hafizabad city (which has its own article), and it's only at the beginning of §Industry that the two are conflated. There's also a distinct tone issue throughout the article, but that's something I can correct. Other than that, it seems like the article should be deleted (or reduced to a stub). — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as stub — I found it in this 1951 census village list, on page 42, so its existence can be verified at least, along with some (presumably very outdated) information. It certainly meets notability guidelines as a populated place, and any issues with the current article can be fixed easily enough, even if it ends up very stubby. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I went ahead and added the census info to the article. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @3 kids in a trenchcoat: The source seems inaccessible using a browser. Is a specialized program needed to access it? ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 13:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Aseleste: The .pdf file? I can view it in Chrome. You might need the Adobe Acrobat extension for that, and it may take a while to load as the file is 352 pages long. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand why this keeps getting relisted. We have a cast-iron reliable source showing that this was a village with a population of 1,710 in 1951, obviously passing WP:GEOLAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Looks like the place is populated and legally recognized from the above source (finally got access to it), meeting GEOLAND. I agree with reducing it to a stub though. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 02:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep 8,065 people in 1,059 households according to the 2017 Census (see p.2). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2021 (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.