Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Villages in Rewari district


 * 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 both. The list of villages in Rewari district has been incorporated to the district article; the list of villages in the Barwala municipality is not substantiated by any source and no arguments have been made in favor of keeping; the list of villages in Panchkula district has not formally been nominated. Mandsford 23:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Villages in Rewari district

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No need for a list, and no articles for each of these villages. More importantly, no indication this topic, as a list, has any references to vouch for its notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding List of villages in Barwala block to this nomination. Same reason. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Decapitalise, columnize and merge into Rewari district. Dr.  Blofeld  10:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:NOTLINK. I'd also like to suggest adding List of Villages in Panchkula District to the nomination for the same reason. andy (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a few of these. I'm not sure if the creator understands the process. I left a message, and others might too, but I think this is difficult because I don't want to scare off the editor but I don't think any of these topics lists are notable in the least. I'm Ok with Blofeld's suggestion of a merge, but obviously I don't think all of these individual redlink villages should have a dab page. I'm very open to ideas about how to proceed. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I think you are mistaken if you think populated places are not notable. You haven't done the research to be able to say this. Obviously some are more than others but I think you'd be surprised at some of these places which seem utterly unnotable in this list if multiple sources and info and photographs of some of the locations were presented to you. Some of the villages in the list undoubtedly have several thousand people living in them and are settlements of encyclopedic note, not all maybe but a considerable amount. The list granted are an awful mess but just googling Bhoj Balag at random reveals http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bhoj+balag&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a potential source which would not only support a list but some decent stubs too. I see some government reliable sources covering civil works taking place in this random village etc. As long as each village is verifiable then I think this list should remain and be moved into the district articles and fomratted properly. As long as this editor doesn't create tons of unreferenced short stubs on these villages then having them red linked is not a problem. Dr.  Blofeld  10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I may have been unclear... I only am referring to the list, not the villages themselves (I think most geographic things are inherently notable, although there is some threshold at which a merge is better... but that's another issue). Shadowjams (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the notability of the places that's at issue, just the list. A list of places with notable temples, for example, is definitely worth having, but these lists are of no more value than a telephone directory. And anyway there's no point in a list that purports to be comprehensive and yet where 90% of entries are redlinks and probably always will be. These are telephone directories where most of the people listed don't have phones! andy (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a group of editors working on Indian villages I think. Maybe the lists would be better compiled in the workspace. But red links ar enot a bad thing, not pretty but invite people to develop the encyclopedia. Unfortunately a lot of editors interested in rural India are not fluent english speakers. Dr.  Blofeld  12:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even a completed list would be of little or no encyclopaedic value. WP:NOTLINK states "Wikipedia articles are not... Mere collections of internal links, except for... lists to assist with article organization and navigation", and WP:STANDALONE makes it clear that a list should provide an encyclopaedic context for inclusion and notes that "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value" . And then there's the issue of verifiability - without a reference to a gazetteer these lists all fail WP:VER and must be deleted. andy (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  11:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed that some maintenance work needs to be done but that should not be a reason for deletion. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Rewari district. When the villages have their own articles, a category will take care of such information. utcursch | talk 20:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See Rewari district. Dr.  Blofeld  10:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete villages merged into Rewari district and this article no longer serves a stand-alone purpose.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:26, 16 September 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.