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.
This article only had one reference when I started to copyedit it, and the reference referred to Hafizabad city instead of Kot Hasan Khan. In fact, most of the article talks about Hafizabad city (which has
its own article), and it's only at the beginning of §Industry that the two are conflated. There's also a distinct tone issue throughout the article, but that's something I can correct. Other than that, it seems like the article should be deleted (or reduced to a stub). —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 )
12:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as stub — I found it in
this 1951 census village list, on page 42, so its existence can be verified at least, along with some (presumably very outdated) information. It certainly meets notability guidelines as a populated place, and any issues with the current article can be fixed easily enough, even if it ends up very stubby.
3 kids in a trenchcoat (
talk)
03:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Aseleste: The .pdf file? I can view it in Chrome. You might need the Adobe Acrobat extension for that, and it may take a while to load as the file is 352 pages long. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 )
23:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't understand why this keeps getting relisted. We have a cast-iron reliable source showing that this was a village with a population of 1,710 in 1951, obviously passing
WP:GEOLAND.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep: Looks like the place is populated and legally recognized from the above source (finally got access to it), meeting
GEOLAND. I agree with reducing it to a stub though. ~
Aseleste (
t,
e |
c,
l)
02:45, 31 March 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.
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.
This article only had one reference when I started to copyedit it, and the reference referred to Hafizabad city instead of Kot Hasan Khan. In fact, most of the article talks about Hafizabad city (which has
its own article), and it's only at the beginning of §Industry that the two are conflated. There's also a distinct tone issue throughout the article, but that's something I can correct. Other than that, it seems like the article should be deleted (or reduced to a stub). —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 )
12:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as stub — I found it in
this 1951 census village list, on page 42, so its existence can be verified at least, along with some (presumably very outdated) information. It certainly meets notability guidelines as a populated place, and any issues with the current article can be fixed easily enough, even if it ends up very stubby.
3 kids in a trenchcoat (
talk)
03:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Aseleste: The .pdf file? I can view it in Chrome. You might need the Adobe Acrobat extension for that, and it may take a while to load as the file is 352 pages long. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 )
23:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't understand why this keeps getting relisted. We have a cast-iron reliable source showing that this was a village with a population of 1,710 in 1951, obviously passing
WP:GEOLAND.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep: Looks like the place is populated and legally recognized from the above source (finally got access to it), meeting
GEOLAND. I agree with reducing it to a stub though. ~
Aseleste (
t,
e |
c,
l)
02:45, 31 March 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.