Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chak 217 GB (2nd nomination)

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 217 GB

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost completely uncited, poorly written, original research, all the trimmings.

Articles detail some of the many chaks (villages) in Pakistan. These are typically unsourced, or just contain mapping information as sources. Some seem to be written by residents of the chaks in question. Unlike my earlier nomination for other chaks, these are longer, but are poorly sourced and poorly written. There are very, very likely similar unsourced, non-notable, completely unnecessary articles for chaks exactly like these across Wikipedia, but these are just the ones I could find. Ah, the pain and suffering of unpaid quality control.

Here are the aforementioned "articles". I had difficulties placing the AfD notices on the articles, but they're linked here:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nomination fixed. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Peter James (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources, both of the places in Pakistan have at least as many sources cited as some places in other countries: Newtown, Isle of Wight for example. Chak village and Chuhar Chak are in India. Peter James (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:GEOLAND states that populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Would it not be possible to simply remove the unsourced material? To be fair, there are like a million Chak-x villages with articles. Some like Chak 358 JB Dulham Shareef without even coordinates should be probably deleted, but if the communities can be verified and some sources can be dug up (like this for Chak 217 from the last AfD) then they could probably just be pared down to stubs. Mbdfar (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly I don't quite understand the logic behind the article nominator's above comment - "Some seem to be written by residents of the chaks in question". Now I have been living in Michigan, US for a long time, is it considered a 'negative' for me to write or edit an article about Michigan which I may do out of fondness and a bond I have developed with it by living in the state? As long as I try to follow Wikipedia guidelines and try to keep things factual and neutral? Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gujjar Pin: 4,152 people in 725 households (2017 Pakistan Census, Faisalabad District, Punjab, page 132). Chak 219/EB: 857 people in 125 households (2017 Pakistan Census Vehari District, Punjab, page 5). Chuhar Chak: 1,760 people in 320 households (2011 India Census, Moga District, Punjab, page 52). Given the coordinates of Chak Village in UP, it looks to be in the Ramgadi Gram Panchayat, but as far as I can see does not appear in the 2011 Census, but that alone is not reason to delete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added 2 new references to the article provided above by Goldsztajn and Mbdfar. Trimmed down the article by removing unsourced material. Passes WP:GEOLAND as already suggested above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Goldsztajn and Ngrewal1: I just want you to be aware of the nominator's other similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mochiwala. Mbdfar (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.