Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranikuthi


 * 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. Possible merge or redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ranikuthi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The claimed "20% of students in Kolkata" ought to provide a larger footprint for sourcing than this manages to generate. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Strong Delete -It is neither a village, nor a district or sub-district (confirm). It appears to be a residential area in Kolkata, that has passing mentions in some sources but not to the extent that would help subject meet GNG standard. It fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a stub for the time being awaiting improvements; Google reveals plenty of business, such as banks and apartments, listing "Ranikuthi" as a location, thereby satisfying WP:GEOLAND. Bear also in mind that "Kolkata" is Calcutta, any sliver of which is odds-on more heavily populated than entire cities elsewhere. Pax 12:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not an article on Kolkata. This is an article on an insignificant and unsourced location, with its claimed notability based solely on inheritance from Kolkata, and a pretty ludicrous claim about "20% of students in Kolkata". That's obviously a large and notable number of students, but there's no evidence to connect them with this very minor place. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Voting keep is not the same as saying the article doesn't need to be fixed. It does. Until some useful information materializes, this stub article does not need to be more than one sentence long. Per WP:GEOLAND, we do not know at present whether or not Ranikuthi is a "Populated, legally-recognized place" (automatic notability) or a "Populated place without legal recognition" (resolved case-by-case). Since on Google I see banks incorporating "Ranikuthi" into their branch names, we should err on the side of caution. A fairly simple way to establish more general notability with a place name: chuck it at Google + (other term) to see what you get. "Crime", for example, yields this, among other results. Pax 13:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "we do not know at present whether or not Ranikuthi is a "Populated, legally-recognized place" "
 * Then, per WP:BURDEN, the author or those looking to keep this article need to find some evidence for it, otherwise it goes.
 * Nor are Google and lexical name overlaps a WP:RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I linked an RS in the last sentence of my last reply. Pax 20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Totally absurd!! WP:GEOLAND doesn't make the subject automatically notable as it is NOT a legally recognized populated place (confirm here). Populated place without legal recognition? -OK. Establsh GNG then. Show me the sources, yes multiple, secondary, independent and reliable sources having substantial coverage of the subject. We seriously are not going to keep an article on a non-notable residential place. Anupmehra - Let's talk!  20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Directly quoting myself above quoting WP:Geoland: "Populated place without legal recognition" (resolved case-by-case)". In other words, not "Totally absurd!!". Regards RS, the same reply included a link to a front-page article in The Telegraph of India (the inclusion of which in this discussion represents my attempt to "resolve" this "case-by-case". Pax 20:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are required to establish WP:GNG here, that requires a subject must have received "significant" coverage in "multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources". Here is the definition of "significant coverage", I'm directly copying-pasting from the same guideline for better understanding, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".
 * So, where is this kind of coverage of the subject? Yes, we are doing case-to-case evaluation and I am asking to establish GNG. Subject fails WP:GEOLAND #1 for "not being a legalized populated place" and #2 for "lacking significant coverage in multiple independent sources". Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Google News search reveals Times of India and Calcutta Telegraph sources both in the first four returns. Pax 16:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you say WP:GOOGLEHITS? Notability is not established by Google. Please search the term again and present here all sources what you see there having "significant" coverage of subject (or expand the article?). Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  02:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This conversation is now outright ridiculous. How on earth do you imagine that The Times of India and the Calcutta Telegraph do not constitute major, independent RS, in fact, not archetypical cases (as some of the biggest papers in India)? - If this were over Hell's Kitchen, and I demonstrated that the New York Times popped up in a Google search, you would not be making this argument. Pax 07:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you don't or are unable to understand what the heck WP:GNG stands for. I'm not going to count how many times I've quoted "significant" coverage in my earlier comments. Do you understand, "passing mentions in tons of rs doesn't establish GNG"? What notability criteria are you trying to establish with "passing mentions"? Be specific! Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, or Redirect to Kolkata. It is clearly an established and recognized neighborhood . These are mentions, not enough to build an article around, but they do verify that the neighborhood exists. Redirecting would retain the article history for possible future expansion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is something that exists (but that's not an inclusion criteria). Being not a legally recognized populated place exclude it from WP:GEOLAND criteria and lacking "significant" coverage in multiple independent sources make it fall short to reach WP:GNG standard. I'm not seeing any other notability criteria, the subject may be able to satisfy. We really are not a database of everything that exists. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  02:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will note that for most American large cities, there are articles about all the significant neighborhoods. Try any American city and you will see this is true. Ranikuthi appears to be a significant neighborhood of one of the world's largest cities. I would hate to see us decide that neighborhood articles are appropriate for American cities but not for Indian cities. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG doesn't just vanish because we're afraid of being seen as biased. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:INDAFD details on this type of location can not be found in Google. Per long standing consensus this sort of neighborhoods are usually kept if their names are found to have verifiable widespread usage and in this case I can see enough verifiable widespread usage.  Jim Car ter  04:09, 29 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.