Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachro

: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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

=[[Bachro]]=

:{{la|Bachro}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Bachro}})

Stub, no references, WP:NOTE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, ... Safety Cap (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree since it is unreferenced, would need to be remade MadCow257 (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep obviousley the page has now been improved MadCow257 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep - populated places that can be determined to exist (I Googled) are inherently notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

:Comment I don't see that anywhere in the GNG. Where do you get the guideline that places with a population are inherently notable? Yunshui (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

::Nevermind, found it at WP:Notability (geography). An essay, rather than a guideline, but nevertheless suggests that population and existence imply notability. Yunshui (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

:::The guideline does say that only government-recognized places are inherently notable, FWIW. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep Per WP:FIVE #1 "Gazeteer" and WP:NPLACE.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NPLACE. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: Community consensus has long been that populated places like villages are inherently notable. The same goes for animal species, animal genus, and so forth. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep and remind the nominator that AFD is not for articles that can be improved by normal editing. "Stub" and "no references" are reasons to improve an article not to delete them - especially when the article was less than twenty minutes old when it was tagged for AFD. Please remember to carry out wp:Before before tagging articles for AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 21:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Listed in the GEOnet Names Server, a reliable source, and as stated above verifiable populated places are notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:43, 28 August 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.