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. KaisaL (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prasurampur[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Prasurampur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With just a mention in some census results, there’s no evidence that this is notable under WP:NGEO Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool, Mangoe: it’s not a legally recognised place as village development committees have been abolished. And WP:NGEO specifically excludes census tracts. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the evidence that this is a census tract; I'm don't think that the notion even applies here. And while this is a principle which I personally find a bit dubious, it has as a rule been held that notability doesn't go away just because (for instance) some level of governmental structure has been abolished. Mangoe (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiffbear88, I think you misunderstand what notability is. Notability is simply about the question of whether there are enough independent reliable sources covering the topic such that we can write a decent article on the subject without failing WP:V. We presume notability on the basis that some topics, based on a particular important attribute, are quite certain to have such sources somewhere even if we can't find them right now. In this case, a village development committee used to be one of around 4000 local administrative units that made up the country. For the time that the system was active, everything was recorded under this geographic/administrative structure. It's easy to presume that there would be multiple sources profiling each VDC, census and survey data for decades, information on what geographical features lay within and around, political events and election data on multiple local elections, newsworthy social, cultural, health, etc. events and so on. That's why we should keep the article, so that if and when more people who have access to both the offline sources and the internet drop by wikipedia and find a stub, they could contribute to building it even if they wouldn't otherwise have had the time or the inclination to find out why the article didn't exist or if they could create one. And because, in this case like in some others, we can't ever be a complete encyclopedia without covering topics like this. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Usedtobecool - I do understand notability, honestly, but at the time there was only one very weak source in the article and I couldn’t find any other WP:RS to add myself - I nominated because I found it odd that a recognised place would have zero articles on it. Glad that others have now been found. Whilst I agree with you, we can’t keep every single unsourced article in the hope that someone might drop by and add a source on a whim! But I acknowledge I’m still relatively new to this and finding my feet. PS Twinkle has been so useful, thanks for the tip! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2020 (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.
More