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. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beishanyang[edit]

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

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

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

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

Unsourced since 2009. The village is stubbish and thus unnotable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Please search for Chinese-language sources before nominating a Chinese village for deletion. I added some references. Wikidata page for this village is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4881403 but I think this page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14792490 refers to the same village. Attention from some China experts would be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eastmain: it looks like this is the same case as the barangays in our case, in which majority of the village-level divisions of the Philippines' 1,634 municipal-level divisions does not have English-language sources and thus cannot benefit from notability. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. References do not have to be in English to be valid. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. It would be nice if the Chinese government published a gazetteer in English that could be used as a reference, but I do not think it has done so. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to confirm Eastmain's comment. According to WP:Notability: Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of sources on Baidu to establish that it is a legally recognized populated place to meet WP:GEOLAND (see Villages of China). Jumpytoo Talk 07:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Passes WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2021 (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.