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 redirect to Burhanpur. Hog Farm _Talk 13:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burhanpur Municipal Corporation[edit]

Burhanpur Municipal Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

During new page patrol I came across about 120 articles by the same editor awaiting review. I passed about 10 of them and IMO about 110 need to get deleted. The 110 are 3-4 mass-produced "bundles", each about a certain type of entity in India. I had a dialog with the editor and they agreed to stop producing these types of articles. This article is an example / test case of one of those bundles which is "Municipal Corporations" For these, the government of a city is technically called a "Municipal Corporation". For conversation I'll guess that this is a bundle of 50 articles of this exact type. The editor did mass creation of articles separate from the cities which they govern. For example, the title of the subject article is about the government of the city of Burhanpur. IMO there will be a slam-dunk decision that this is a fork / should not be a separate article from the city. The question is what to do with it. These were created by starting with info which is in common to ALL such municipal corporations and then editing in the city name and typically putting in a very specific narrow factoid (e.g. election of one person) and a reference for that. So 95% of the article is really not about the subject, and 5% is trivial narrow factoids within it. For a comparison between two of these articles see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANorth8000%2Ftest&type=revision&diff=1095827125&oldid=1095826356 I don't see how any type of a "merge" for 50 of these could actually be accomplished, plus there is really no material suitable for a merge. So I would argue for an outright "delete" or possibly a redirect without requiring merge of any material. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Firstly, thank you for your approach of doing a test/pilot. This could be a good role model for other editors wishing to do mass deletions. Also for the detail in the nomination, which gives us context without being a wall of text.
• Delete It looks like a copy-paste template, it does not contain encyclopaedic content. Before I looked I thought maybe we'd have a difficult decision on our hands, but I found it easy to say delete here. As always, I remain open minded to being persuaded if someone has a logical reason to keep. CT55555 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect if it works. I echo the above sentiments about this test article. Atsme 💬 📧 17:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not seeing an actual argument for deletion here. So the articles were mass-created and are lacking in specific content but, bearing in mind WP:NODEADLINE, why do we need to delete them? Are they not verifiable? Not notable? Eligible for speedy deletion? I also don't understand why the nominator is so quick to discard the option of merging or redirecting to the parent articles on cities, which would seem the obvious alternative to deletion here. – Joe (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the simple reason is that it's bad-idea fork from the respective city article. All of the other discussed items add to that rationale. Regarding your other question, the nomination covered that in detail.....not sure if you has time to read the whole thing. Including that having a redirect with no requirement to merge the non-existent suitable material would be fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and India. – Joe (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Most of Category:Municipal corporations in Madhya Pradesh is copy-paste nothingness stating general concepts of how local governments work without any specificity to the particular places/topics. Something that is not a legitimate article about its purported subject can certainly be deleted. Nodeadline is not a justification for keeping crap pages expecting someone to eventually fix them. This isn't just at NPP, Kakinada Municipal Corporation is 7 years old and has zero content about the Kakinada Municipal Corporation other than the name of the commissioner: it's a paragraph about Kakinada and then the same functions and revenue sources about these local governments in general, duplicating Municipal corporation (India). In this case I don't see anything to merge, but generally relevant content belongs in the main article until a split is warranted. Reywas92^Talk 19:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Reywas92. The article creator is producing masses of cookie-cutter articles with no real substance. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi North8000,Shellwood,CT55555,Joe Roe,Atsme, Reywas92 and Mccapra. Dear all. I respect your opinions. However, all of these are statutory organisations but if you give me opportunity to move them to draft space so that I can correct them and improve I will be thankful to all of you. Similar ones for other places were existing which were not structured and properly written. I did it to get quality in Wikipedia. They are notable. Six of my articles were deleted through this process and I know no one can pass this stage. I had to work on them though they seem to be copy and paste. To respect my hard work I request all of you. Certainly it will not be encouraging if I loose them. If the articles doesnt meet Wikipedia guidelines than I can understand. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Gardenkur: Thanks for your post. And from our previous conversations, I respect that you have good intentions and are trying to cooperate. However I also believe that you do not understand the main criteria that we are dealing with here which is not article quality, it is criteria for existence as a separate article. Roughly speaking, you have about 50 articles with situations identical to this awaiting NPP review and another 60 articles with situations nearly identical to this awaiting NPP review for a total of about 110. How about this for a deal? You support moving all 110 to draft space. And you work with me to understand the criteria regarding the first few that you are intending to move back into article space. To be honest, I think that you will learn that it best not to move them back into article space. But even then, you would have an understanding on how to continue your prolific editing without running afoul of the Wikipedia staqndards, thus having a much more enjoyable Wikipedia editing experience. In exchange, I would support moving this article and the rest of the other 110 articles to draft space instead of taking them all to AFD which is the inevitable alternative. I can't speak for others, and also hope for their input, but I would support and what I described. I think that this is what you already requested on my talk page. Is that agreeable with you? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)Gardenkur, my comment here holds true here as well. See all the other articles about cities, and how the smaller parts of government and government services (utilities, municipal courts, bus stations, even schools & hospitals, etc.) are included in the main article about the city. We summarize, rather than include all the details. Also see WP:CORP, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:LOCAL, and WP:GNG. Atsme 💬 📧 01:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi North8000 and Atsme. Thanks a lot for your support and understanding. No need to question North. I never denied. I only felt before other editors mess up with these articles presenting in wrong way I will do the best to improve standards here. Will follow as you all guide and really looking forward to work with each one of you removing personal opinions. Last 6 deleted articles were really a bad experience for me though I leave them to move forward. Thanks to one and all here. Gardenkur (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gardenkur: Thanks for your post. Just to clarify, I will interpret that as accepting my offer described above. If I am wrong, please tell me now. Otherwise I await and welcome any objections or input from others. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 And Gardenkur, I just want to say that most of us have been in a similar situation as you are now, but no one I'm aware of has been as prolific as you in article creation. You have great energy, and I'm confident that after you've had a chance to work with North8000, you will be a great asset to the project. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 01:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Atsme. Thanks again for your motivation and every effort is only to get quality here. Will try from my knowledge and rest can improve further. Wikipedia is a global plaform and it should have best quality. Will continue working.Gardenkur (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - I second Joe on this. No real reason for deletion is given. It's by no means implausible that acceptable articles on municipal corporations could be written, and draftification is the pretty route to silent deletion. These can easily be redirected to the city articles. Ingratis (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Ingratis. I respect and thank for your opinion. Gardenkur (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2022(UTC)

  Hi North8000. I accept North. No second thoughts. Sorry further efforts will be as guided. Thanking you in advace. Gardenkur (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support agreement per ATD. @ Gardenkur, it seems you have found someone willing to be a mentor. If this is accepted please be aware that there are odds there could be some merges, redirects, and even deletions. Sometimes a subject, especially if there is bare notability, is better presented in a parent article. This can have two positive outcomes, 1)- Notability is not an issue with content, 2)- Added material with references can create a better article. If this is successful at least three things can happen, a)- Articles that are published stand a "very" slim chance of being brought to AFD (slim only because nearly anything is possible), b)-You will learn some valuable information, c)- Going forwards articles you publish will likely also not be brought to AFD. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2022 (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.