Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuang jia shan


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Zhuang jia shan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No sourcing given to indicate that this settlement exists. Not even Chinese, coordinates, or a smaller division within Shandong province given HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  06:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - This village was actually not difficult to find through Google searching. I have updated the article with more precise location information and coordinates.--Danaman5 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I don't seem rash, but really, before, there was absolutely no helpful information, which you provided. Thanks much for the initial help, though I could not find the village on this list of admin divisions of Ju County. – HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  14:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that there wasn't much there; I had to guess at what the Chinese characters might be. The list you linked doesn't seem to break down 东莞镇, which is where this village is located, but it is listed on the 2009 list (#371122110231).--Danaman5 (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the village has now been basically identified, there is the question of finding any actionable information on it. The closest I have found is this website, but I don't know how reliable it is. I can't find any population statistics, because none of the reports are detailed enough to give statistics for a single village.--Danaman5 (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a sentence about an archaeological find near the village. That's about all I can find.--Danaman5 (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep as individual settlements are treated as notable. It is now identifiable in Google maps following Danaman5's research and is revealed as a fairly substantial rural village. The lack of other information is not, therefore, sufficient reason for deletion. I propose that the title of the article should be changed to a single word which seems to be accordance with accepted naming convention. --AJHingston (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As explained above, individual settlements are almost always considered notable if they have been shown to exist. As we are slowly but surely adding sources to the article which show that the settlement does exist, the prerequisites for notability and verifiability are satisfied. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Precedent also shown at WP:NPLACE. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - there seems to be enough here to prove the existence of this settlement, at least. Also, support the rename suggested by AJHingston.--Danaman5 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2011 (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.