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 no consensus, default to keep. Notability is not the issue here, verifiability is. But as long as this toponym is recorded in sources such as Google Maps, Encarta, the "Population Census of Pakistan, 1961" etc., I can't just hit the delete button and say that I know better than them. Computerised sources are not per se unreliable. As with print sources, it all depends on the publisher and editor, but the prima facie burden of verifiability has been met in this case. Remaining uncertainties, if any, may be noted in the article itself.  Sandstein  18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahammadkati[edit]

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

Article makes no assertion of notability, indeed it provides no information other than the name of the village and it's location; Seems very unlikely to ever grow to more than a stub. There are no matches for the village in the Google News archive, and all the Google web matches seem to be auto-generated pages based on the village's atlas coordinates. Kaldari (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and close AFD. It's been firmly established that any real world location is inherently notable. Exxolon (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please show me where this has been "firmly established". If that is the case, why was the original GEOBot proposal so controversial (and eventually replaced by a dramatically scaled-back proposal)? Also, have you seen Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation), which proposes that "Inclusion on an atlas or in a census would not be sufficient to demonstrate notability". Why would they be proposing such a guideline if it flies in the face of what is "firmly established" on Wikipedia? Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a reference to the common deletion outcomes, per the Places heading at WP:GEOG - "cities and villages are acceptable regardless of size". That said, it isn't a policy or guideline, but it is documentation of common practice. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd find that some of these nowehre places are actually very heavily populated. Many of the villages i started are in the Ganges Delta which is one of the most densely populated places on earth, many of the places are likely to be more populated than some of the smaller European towns. As it stands, no, the info on such place sis not on the web yet, but this isn't to say the place doesn't exist or is a nowehere, the country is very poor and like places in much of Africa haven't wide access to the web ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Consensus has consistently found that towns/villages are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The practical rule for what gets included in WP is what gets kept at AfD when challenged, and all villages and similarly inhabited locations are invariably kept here. This is sometimes justified as assumed sources under the general notability criterion, but in my opinion better justified, by the desirability of avoiding several million AfDs about exactly what size village counts as significant enough. The limiting principle is WP:V -- whether we have reliable information to write the article. The Geobot proposal was discussed because it was not initially clear there would b human input over what was in fact a village, rather than an artifact of the databases used. This need was satisfied during the discussion. DGG (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I would like to note however, that the same person who created this article has also created dozens (perhaps hundreds) of articles about villages and other geographic locations that include no sources or references, whatsoever. Would it be appropriate to nominate them for deletion? Kaldari (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you can find few "useless stubs" without any references or external links. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's fine, provided there are no available sources for these places at all, since that is an obvious alternative to deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't it be better if they were all deleted so that a bot at some point could recreate them all with proper info and sources (which is probably unlikely to happen if the articles already exist)? Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed it would Kaldari. This is why the BOT was established to improve quality too. I;d rather not do it manually if a BOT can create something better. I find it quite offensive that I spent weeks with Fritz to set up the bot and project because I care about wikipedia and what is missing and I believe it or not am striving towards a major world improvement in coverage and qualirt of information which you have not given me an ounce of respect for Kaldari. It isn't my fault many of the thrid world countries haven't accessd to the web to release more info on these places ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure FritzpollBot can be adapted to retrofit these articles if necessary, or WP:GEOBOT can request them deleted as a non-controversial housekeeping speedy immediately before the new articles are created with sources. In the meantime, this small amount of coverage is not brilliant, not ideal, but at least it's there. Retrofitting the existing articles is one of the tasks WP:GEOBOT will have Fritzpoll (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not brilliant"? That's an understatement. Regardless, isn't it many times easier and safer to bot-create articles from scratch than "retrofitting" them? If the retrofitting is automated, there's a good chance it will mangle or duplicate existing info in the article. If it isn't automated, it will take countless otherwise unnecessary man-hours to review all the edits. The solution of speedy deleting them all isn't good either because you either have to waste a lot of time manually reviewing them all or risk deleting any that have developed into good articles. Wouldn't it be better to just wait until decent articles can be created (by bots or otherwise). I don't think the world is going to suffer if there isn't a Wikipedia article about Ahammadkati for another year. Kaldari (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notwithstanding the verification failure below, I'm not sure the argument "it's not a very good quality article" has enormous weight as a deletion argument. If you want to list all of Blofeld's articles in a mass AfD, then go ahead. It looks like some will have verification issues, but we'll need to allocate more than five days, because we're talking tens of thousands. I'm not averse to checking them, it's just a procedural point Fritzpoll (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember I have actually written several thousand good quality articles too. There is just so much missing that stubbing is often the best place to start ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure it's notable to the people who lives there. If it's a real place, it's going to stay in, it's about time this was made a policy so these pointless AfDs are avoided in future. Nick mallory (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This particular location fails WP:V; does anybody have proof that it exists at all? Isn't maplandia a wiki? And the Encarta search doesn't find it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the coordinates point to an area of farm fields. The nearest houses are quite a ways away, and might be part of any number of neighboring villages. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ofers a few sources. I'll verify it from the Geonames database in the morning Fritzpoll (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through all 68 of those; all were computer generated. Not so much as blog mention. Worrisome. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only information that Geonames gives is that Ahammadkati is a "populated place" located at 23° 03' 00" N 090° 11' 00" E. On Google Maps there is nothing there but empty fields, nor does there seem to be any other way to verify this place's existence, or whether or not it is in fact a "village". Kaldari (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FallingRain lists it as a "city", but gives the exact same middle-of-a-field coordinates. It should also be noted that FallingRain is known to list places that no longer exist. Kaldari (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, all the sources listed in the Google result are computer generated from a single source (fallingrain is notoriously unreliable over some things). Single source is insufficient to verify, since that's probably where it comes from. Wasn't advocating keep by posting the google results, just wanted someone to look them over before I went to bed. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We do delete settlements we can't confirm actually exist. We've done it before. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Precisely; we at Wikipedia should not be involved in the perpetuation/proliferation of a database mistake, unlike websites devoted to selling timeshares that need to do in order to capture as much web traffic as possible. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Doesn't exist????. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, indulge me. Read the last half of the debate; the concern is that this location might be some sort of mistake, given that all the sources seem to stem from one database entry somewhere in the past, but the town does not appear on aerial photos at the coordinates given, and there is not a whisper of human corroboration, not even on WikiMapia, nothing. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The google map clearly shows that the area is inhabited. Although the map points directly to a rice paddy just look at all the buildings dotted around the place. It is likely to be a farming village and crops sold at Barisal which is about 16km away ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farms and rice paddies do not necessarily make a village, half of the midwest is covered in farms and fields that do not belong to any town. What would be nice is if there were a single mention of this location in something other than a database. Even the coordinates for this location seem odd. The chances of a location falling right on the intersection of two arcminutes is 1 in 3600. And why does the article say 60" in the coordinates. That doesn't even make sense. 60" = 1'. Kaldari (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was able to find 1 mention of "Ahammedkati" (slightly different spelling) in Google Books. It's from a 1961 census of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). So it does appear that this place existed at least at some point. Kaldari (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No its a different place. East Pakistan is over 2000km from the Ganges delta its the other side of India ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, modern "East Pakistan" is on the other side of India, but in 1961, Bangladesh was part of Pakistan and it was called East Pakistan. So it seems likely that the two spellings are the same location. Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that per WP:Verifiability, a policy, "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gaurnadi Upazila. One can then make a table of villages there with geographic and population data instead of creating little stubs. This would make it easier for navigation too. Until cultural and historical information is found, this does not merit a stand-alone article. The same should probably be done to the rest of the village articles whose only information is their location. --Polaron | Talk 17:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no current population figure, and we are not sure it is a place. We know the location is wrong. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep verifiable real world locations are inherently notable. --Ragib (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The verifiability of this "village" is what is at question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is from Columbia University, this is from KesKeCes, and this from fallingrain. There isn't enough web resources available for the agricultural villages in Bangladesh, a very low-tech country. But, if you need more verification, I am sure more can be dredged up. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please dredge, those are all computer-generated and clearly flow from the same source. Again, WP:V puts the burden of proof on the creator of the article, not on those challenging it. Does anybody have a paper map/atlas of Bangladesh? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as for Bangladesh being a low tech country, if you look on WikiMapia for those coordinates [2], you will see that "Pradip Sarkar" has labeled his/her house less than a km away, and numerous other people have labeled towns, schools, their houses and other points of interest. They label nearby villages like Chandshi with someone commenting on how small the world is, and how such places can now be found by "google search". Yet nobody mentions Ahammadkati. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one, Wikimapia isn't a source at all. I can label Ahammadkati for you there, if you prefer. I hope that's not what we are looking for. And, for all those sources flowing from the same source, I think that is a clear wrong statement. At least one of them is a reputed university, and even for the other two it is highly surprising to see the claim of the information coming from the same source. What is that source? Can someone explain. It looks very much like a case of I don't like it. Please, show that I am wrong here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, here goes more - encarta map, reproduction of google map (google map proper), gospelgo.com, islamicfinder.com. Please, let me know how much more is needed? Nobody mentioning the village on Wikimapia can't be a measure for non-verification. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, here is the link to Population Census of Pakistan, 1961: District Census Report. If you're still bent of lawyering, like the "burden on proof is not on me", remember that the burden of upholding the spirit of Wikiepdia is still on you. As history goes, East Pakistan of 1961 is Bangladesh of 2008 (see J. G. Lammers, N. S. Saksena, Imtiaz Omar, B. G. Ramcharan, or Judith Kidd). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for screaming above. But, when a real world place gets challenged first on the very premise of being inherently notable, and then on whether this place exists at all, with a bit of confusion of identity (East Pakistan/Bangladesh) and repeated quoting of a cherry picked piece of policy (the burden of proof), there is ample reason to see a lack of spirit. And, if anything, that hurts. Sorry that my hurt showed through. No harm meant. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is a non-computerized source. Where do these online sources get their data? Do you think that the "reputed university" sent a survey team to Bangladesh? No. All of the online sources are getting their data from ONE older source. And it is quite possible that that older source is wrong. It could be wrong it many ways. Perhaps the coordinates are way off. Perhaps the name of the town got confused with the name of the landowner. Perhaps the town depopulated. The only older source that mentions Ahammedkati's population is from 1961.

As for you not assuming good faith on my part, I am greatly insulted. I just created an article for a small village in Nepal, Ringmo. I am all for accurate articles on tiny villages on Wikipedia. My concern is that using a single database mistake as the basis for a Wikipedia article fails WP:V. There is no other evidence for the existence of this place. Remember that Wikipedia has a reputation of being unreliable, see Reliability of Wikipedia.

Finally, let's examine WikiMapia. To the north of the coordinates for "Ahammadkati" is a tag for Nabagram village [3]. Now if one does a Google News search for Nabagram, 18 recent news articles appear. As has been previously ascertained, no news articles for Ahammadkati under any of its spellings appear. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking one of the five pillars? Since arguing WP:N is not allowed, I have no choice but to use WP:V. WP:N is a guideline. WP:V is a policy. Go argue there that the burden of proof lies on me. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2008 (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.