Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrid

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 speedy keep. Nomination and all delete-!votes withdrawn in light of newly discovered sourcing. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrid

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

Previously deleted via PROD and soon after recreated. Whatever this is, it seems not to be officially recognised in census reports, water supply records etc. The onefivenine.com website now cited is not considered to be a reliable source and, in fact, I thought had been blacklisted recently. See brief discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_65#Ukrid Sitush (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Places WP:NPLACE. Recreating a PROD is allowed, I'm not sure how that's relevant. Also, AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the recreation was not allowed. I was simply reporting the facts. And no, AfD is not clean up but NPLACE doesn't apply to every place, nor to places that may not in fact exist. Otherwise, we would have an article for every house on every street. Please show some evidence that this place has some sort of official recognition or similar. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It exists, you can clearly see it on Google maps, it has houses, shops and banks and such. Clearly meets WP:NPLACE requirements. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps is not a reliable source. They hold open days where they encourage visitors to edit the things. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are editing the satellite imagery. I mean, I can see it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. You may be able to see a place that someone has labelled as being Ukrid. Doesn't mean it is. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think really the onus is on you to prove it isn't called Ukrid, so we can have an article with the correct title. Anyway, it is pincoded by India Post^[1](etc) and has census data^{[2][3] [4]}. At this location there are banks and schools with Ukrid in their names as well.^[5][6][7] It's fairly obvious it's there. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pincode and census sites are not reliable sources - neither are official and the census one in particular is known to aggregate from other sites - see MT Train's note below, which has the official link. Not sure about the schools sites, although some of those are definitely aggregators with little editorial oversight and have been spammed onto Wikipedia in the past. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the census data includes plenty of villages with 200 or so people living in it, so if it doesn't make that grade then it really is small, especially given the size of the average Indian family. I'm not trawling around to find examples but one article I edited recently and recall was Dilmeshwar, where the population was 327 across 70 houses, which may perhaps gives you an indication of how small this place must be, if it exists at all. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pincode itself is official. And the Indian government's own website at www.censusindia.gov.in verifies the existence of this village in their governmental database with the ID codes 369137 & 368945 in the Ramgarh district [8]. With all respect to MT Train, looking at the census handbook purely at the district level was fruitless since it is actually in a different district from what is stated in the article. (not in Bokaro District, actually in the neighboring Ramgarh district). As far as size is concerned, all populated inhabited places are presumed notable regardless of size (in 2011 it had a population of 2,054). Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A prior version of the article claimed Ukrid had a population of 5,000 in 2011, which definitely would make it a census site in its own right. That said, if the district is stated incorrectly in the article (as it also was in the prior version) then it is no wonder no-one found it when I first raised the issue. - 21:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
all populated inhabited places are presumed notable regardless of size - not true, otherwise we would allow articles for every street, based on the same presumed notability that exists for secondary schools etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only wish I had realised the district was wrong to begin with, it would have saved some effort. The actual text from WP:GEOLAND is Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. (obviously applies to this village) but I think individual streets are specifically excluded from this and are covered by another guideline where there are not presumed to be notable, therefore they must pass WP:GNG requirements and be significant in some way. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I failed to drag anything relevant.@QEDK and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:--Any reliable sources on the topic?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-368945,Patratu CD, is currently inhabited per Ramgarh cenus handbook.369137, Dulmi CD, has a total population of 2054 and passes NPLACES.I didn't know of the Search Villages/Towns tool and hence searched the wrong handbooks:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention in Bokaro's census handbook. MT Train^Discuss 08:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I will withdraw the nomination based on the official census records found by Prince of Thieves, which relate to a place bearing the same name but in a different district and with a wildly different population to what had been claimed in the nominated article. Whether or not the article creator was hoaxing, there is a place called Ukrid and we can repurpose the article to cover that. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn and all delete comments struck. Note the article is now about what is essentially a different village, of the same name but in a different district. A non-admin closure or other speedy closure could be done. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2018 (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.