601:
lists, one for each district, and for
Chandpur there would be (or it could grow to) in the neighborhood of 1500 list entries. An alternative would be to redirect villages to the smallest enclosing administrative unit, the union parishad. That would lead to embedded lists of more manageable length, but would require 4,554 target articles, only about 500 of which currently exist (and, like the village articles, they're so crappy I really wish they didn't exist).
633:, using the same methodology. Work on mass-created California articles has uncovered many "populated places" sourced to GNIS that are in fact bridges, sidings, factories, oil wells, springs, mines etc. etc. Wiki is a Gazetteer, but it is not a Gazette of every location in the world regardless of legal recognition, population, or notability. Things have changed significantly in the is regard since 2008, particularly with the introduction and development of the
597:
district" articles. Gazetteers are mostly a list of one-sentence descriptions, they don't have a separate page or article about every entry. I see that you've reached out to
Encyclopædius on their talk page. From their "The best thing ... redirect the small village stubs" comment, it appears that they might support this approach. What do you think of it?
414:
described. Of the two that aren't the same, neither has an additional reference but they do provide some additional information that might help you know where they are (famous local people in one, local mosques in the other). TL;DR probably we should delete all the "village" stubs in the above search except
600:
If "List of villages in yyy district" articles were created to be targets of redirection, what information should they list about each village? Administrative geographic context (which upazila and union parishad they're in), geographic coordinates, and population? For
Bangladesh, there would be 64
596:
For nearly all these "xxx is a village" articles, reliable sources exist that demonstrate existence and legal recognition, so because
Knowledge is a gazetteer, I doubt you will succeed in deleting them. You might, however, be able to build support for redirecting them into "List of villages in yyy
569:
For most village articles in
Bangladesh, the 2011 census' community report for the relevant district is a second reliable source, and using it to confirm they're legally recognized is fairly trivial (after accounting for the fact that there isn't one standard way of transliterating Bengali, so a
413:
fail at present since they simply say "X is a village in
Chandpur district in the Chittagong division" with no information that will allow you to actually identify where/what they are. Of the remaining three, one has a disambiguation notice at the top and is otherwise the same as the 63 I just
408:
and got 66 hits, all of them sourced only to GeoNames (an unreliable source), all of them by
Encyclopaedus, all created in the same stub-creation session in July 2008. All except three of them 25-29 words in length according to the search stats. Every one of these 63 articles is a
509:
The article describes this location as a "village", which is basically original research since the GeoNames database describes it only as a "Populated place", which on the face of it is a much broader term than "village" and would include single buildings, camps etc.
432:
as Dr. Blofeld. They created many, many settlement articles in good faith using an automated script. As I recall, they got through the As, Bs, and were well into the Cs before the community stopped them. Later in their career they
437:
for generic stubs of the form "xxx is a village". I believe, although I can't find the post, that they also admitted a measure of regret at having created so many, and tried to delete some, but were overruled on the grounds that
451:
to search
Bangladesh for names beginning with Banstali, you'll get three results, one of which is located at 23.201394, 90.719608, as described in the article. So I have to disagree with participants who say it's
198:
247:
159:
264:
192:
317:
404:- I think we've got another case of someone producing cookie-cutter location micro-stubs in order to bulk out their article-creation stats here. I just searched
316:. I get a pretty bad sinking feeling reading this because I get the impression this may have been a common issue with this editor's mass-created articles, and
434:
302:
I agree with
Pontificialbus, couldn't find any sources about the subject but maybe something its the native name could help. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹
106:
91:
241:
It does not meet notability guidelines, as no relevant sources can be found citing its notability, instead just results for plane tickets and weather.
320:. I've added a health-warning to that particular rankings list as I think some editors were just mass-creating stubs in order to rank higher on it.
559:
555:
481:
475:- Many thanks for this insightful contribution. This certainly illuminates better what was going on. I would make the following comments:
456:. Whether a better source, multiple sources, or sources with a greater depth of coverage, should be required is a different question. --
484:
provides a good rationale for doing this if the original author wants them gone and no-one has contributed any content since creation.
478:
What can be created by a script may (with more work, and where there has been no further content added) be deleted with a script.
86:
79:
17:
629:- GeoNet is also highly unreliable as to whether a location is populated, since it is created by the same people that created
591:
132:
127:
213:
136:
100:
96:
180:
680:
119:
40:
495:. As there is no reliable source with which we can confirm the data on this page it is a straight WP:V fail.
492:
348:(only a few of which are filled in) to make this 15-words-of-prose article more than 5kb in size. I mean, I
174:
676:
562:. It's a generally reliable source. Reliable enough that it's one of the recommended sources for use in
234:
36:
429:
554:, which is based on the Geographic Names Database, containing official standard names approved by the
611:
461:
170:
653:
615:
551:
519:
465:
396:
384:
365:
329:
304:
294:
289:
273:
256:
238:
206:
123:
61:
540:
641:
220:
644:
so long as the data redirected is sourced to a reliable source (i.e., not just GEONames/Net).
634:
499:
353:
288:. It would nice to know this supposed settlement's name in the Bengali language....anyone?----
115:
75:
67:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
675:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
303:
230:
57:
649:
624:
607:
515:
472:
457:
361:
325:
630:
563:
268:
251:
186:
583:
503:
439:
349:
640:
All the same I am very OK with a redirection strategy as it is at least favoured by
502:
fail as there is no evidence here of either legal recognition or notability through
153:
575:
453:
410:
313:
285:
53:
645:
593:
Banstali is an exception. Perhaps it no longer exists or has taken a new name.
536:
528:
511:
415:
357:
321:
587:
383:
I cant find any citation or verification source to know it is a real place.
346:
note the use of an absolutely massive infobox template with lots of fields
579:
547:
488:
571:
419:
590:(now divided into East and West Baluthupa union parishads) p. 52, etc.
448:
671:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
428:
Editors who've been around awhile may remember article creator
406:"is a village in Chandpur district in the Chittagong division"
498:
Even if the source were reliable, this would still be a
489:
GeoNames is not a reliable source as it is crowd-sourced
405:
345:
149:
145:
141:
570:
number of variants must be considered). For
Chandpur:
205:
566:. Reliable doesn't mean always accurate, of course.
318:they're the most prolific article-creator on Wiki
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
683:). No further edits should be made to this page.
263:Note: This discussion has been included in the
246:Note: This discussion has been included in the
248:list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions
491:. Verifiability requires not just any source,
265:list of Geography-related deletion discussions
219:
8:
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
262:
245:
487:In this specific case, the issue is that
560:National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
556:United States Board on Geographic Names
352:but this looks like trying to make a
7:
546:You're confusing the user-generated
449:https://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/
24:
92:Introduction to deletion process
356:look bigger than it really is.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
700:
654:18:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
616:17:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
520:10:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
466:20:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
397:18:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
366:19:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
330:13:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
305:16:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
295:11:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
274:11:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
257:11:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
239:10:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
62:22:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
578:(as Amanullahpur) p. 48,
673:Please do not modify it.
440:Knowledge is a gazetteer
32:Please do not modify it.
582:(as Ashrafpur) p. 64,
558:and maintained by the
229:Non-notable location
80:Articles for deletion
543:, not Encyclopædius.
552:GEOnet Names Server
493:but a reliable one
435:expressed distaste
292:
290:
276:
259:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
691:
628:
532:
394:
389:
271:
254:
224:
223:
209:
157:
139:
77:
34:
699:
698:
694:
693:
692:
690:
689:
688:
687:
681:deletion review
622:
539:was created by
526:
390:
385:
269:
252:
166:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
697:
695:
686:
685:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
638:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
567:
564:Template:Coord
544:
523:
522:
507:
496:
485:
479:
444:
443:
423:
399:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
333:
332:
307:
297:
291:Pontificalibus
278:
277:
260:
227:
226:
163:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
696:
684:
682:
678:
674:
669:
668:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
636:
632:
626:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
605:
599:
595:
592:
589:
585:
584:Baidyanathpur
581:
577:
573:
568:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
538:
535:Just an FYI,
534:
533:
530:
525:
524:
521:
517:
513:
508:
505:
501:
497:
494:
490:
486:
483:
480:
477:
476:
474:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
463:
459:
455:
450:
446:
445:
441:
436:
431:
430:Encyclopædius
427:
424:
421:
417:
412:
407:
403:
400:
398:
395:
393:
388:
382:
379:
378:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
308:
306:
301:
298:
296:
293:
287:
283:
280:
279:
275:
272:
266:
261:
258:
255:
249:
244:
243:
242:
240:
236:
232:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
672:
670:
454:unverifiable
425:
401:
391:
386:
380:
309:
299:
281:
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
642:WP:PRESERVE
576:Amanullapur
447:If you use
231:Hyperwave11
193:free images
635:WP:GEOLAND
625:Worldbruce
608:Worldbruce
537:Mustafapur
500:WP:GEOLAND
473:Worldbruce
458:Worldbruce
416:Mustafapur
354:micro-stub
677:talk page
637:standard.
588:Baluthupa
270:Spiderone
253:Spiderone
37:talk page
679:or in a
580:Asrafpur
548:GeoNames
312:- Fails
160:View log
116:Banstali
101:glossary
68:Banstali
39:or in a
574:p. 50,
572:Alumura
541:N ajger
426:Comment
420:Aingiri
402:Comment
300:Delete?
199:WP refs
187:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
586:p.79,
504:WP:GNG
381:Delete
350:WP:AGF
344:Also:
310:Delete
284:Fails
282:Delete
171:Google
137:delete
54:Daniel
50:delete
646:FOARP
550:with
529:FOARP
512:FOARP
358:FOARP
322:FOARP
214:JSTOR
175:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
650:talk
631:GNIS
612:talk
516:talk
462:talk
418:and
411:WP:V
387:Shah
362:talk
326:talk
314:WP:V
286:WP:V
235:talk
207:FENS
181:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
392:ram
221:TWL
158:– (
652:)
614:)
606:--
518:)
482:G7
464:)
364:)
328:)
267:.
250:.
237:)
201:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
52:.
648:(
627::
623:@
610:(
531::
527:@
514:(
506:.
460:(
442:.
422:.
360:(
324:(
233:(
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.