Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annand Pura

Annand Pura

Annand Pura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

We don't automatically keep residential areas of cities, and gnews and gbooks seem to be unfamiliar with this one -- despite the puffery in the article. Wholly unreferenced, and tagged for that failure for over 2 years. Created by a 1-article-only-ever SPA. It may have a BLP issue as well, as it asserts that a certain named person's house is there. Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep if can be verified as all cities towns districts neighborhoods are notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• That is not my understanding (as expressed above) as to neighborhoods. What is the basis of your view? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi -- I'm still curious what the basis is for your understanding. I think your statement is not correct. My understanding is that populated places without legal recognition, including such neighborhoods, are considered on a case-by-case basis and are not treated as inherently notable, as cities and towns are. To be notable, there must be RS evidence of substantial non-trivial information about it.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• In support of my above statement, see Wikipedia:Notability (geography). I'm still curious what the basis is for your understanding.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep There is evidence that this site exists; see these links: , , , and for example. Mar4d (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• As indicated above, that a neighborhood exists does not mean that it is notable. As best I can tell, this is simply a "residential area" -- as the article itself describes it.

Wikipedia:Notability (geography) states: "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis. This includes unofficial neighborhoods ... The lack of an official charter and legal boundaries and other documentation means that we will have to weigh the quality of non-official information on a place to determine notability. For example, a named subdivision that takes up part of a county, but has no formal legal boundaries, will be notable if evidence can be shown of substantial non-trivial information about that subdivision."

See also our guideline WP:NRVE ("No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists"). Thus, I believe what we need here is for the residential area to meet GNG, and have substantial non-trivial RS coverage. I haven't found that, and the urls that you point us to don't seem to satisfy the requirement either.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 01:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Existence is not notability. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete At least at this stage, the subject doesn't seem notable. Also it's unnecessary and non-encyclopaedic to mention "the house of X is also situated in this area" unless "X" is notable otherwise.--SubContinentalAnalyst (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2012 (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.