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)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhujiecun[edit]

Zhujiecun (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)

Stub has 11 words and zero sources. Appears to fail both WP:V and WP:GNG. There are quite a lot of others like this one... bobrayner (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject is described as a village, and populated places are generally considered automatically notable. Is there doubt about whether this village really exists? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a source for that automatic notability thing? I had a look in WP:GNG and didn't find it. Even if there is a rule which supports some kind of automatic notability for settlements, I expect it's unlikely to extend so far that any article saying only "X exists" - without a source - suddenly gets a green light. bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a policy of automatic notability, just the way that things are "generally considered"; see Wikipedia:Notability (geography). I haven't specifically recommended "keep" yet on this place because I am waiting to see if any good sources turn up. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – per Five pillars, Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. Here are the coordinates for the location: 29°55′40″N 91°4′37″E / 29.92778°N 91.07694°E / 29.92778; 91.07694, (which I also added to the article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those coordinates appear to show a field. There is a farm 200m to the north, with a different name according to the map overlay. Is a field called Zhujiecun automatically notable? I note that the first pillar you cite doesn't say that all places are automatically notable, but it does says that en.wikipedia is not "an indiscriminate collection of information". bobrayner (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some more remote areas the satellite overlay isn't always perfect - I've noticed this when following detailed RSed coordinates for articles on individual Japanese trees, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - I see this name does indeed appear on google maps, but the best information I can find is that used by User:Symplectopedia in creating lots of township level pages over on the zh wikipedia, namely that published by the National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China; here's the link which includes Lhünzhub County, Lhasa, Tibet which is the page here on wikipedia that claims to have Zhujiecun amongst its subdivisions; while I can recognize most of the characters I have no idea how to transliterate so can only rely on Google Translate - which for the several hundred examples I've looked at today seems to match those used here on wikipedia; the problem is that of the township-level units here, only two transliterations match those on Lhünzhub County (although there is the additional complication of an apparent mix of Tibetan and Chinese names); I'm finding only Chunduixiang and Kazixiang; there may have been renaming or reorganisation in the intervening decade since the "in 2000" mentioned. I think this discussion (are there others too?) should be continued at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Jaguar because it all relates to the same basic issues, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The townships in Lhünzhub County are sourced to this page on Baidu Baike, a collaborative web-based encyclopaedia; as far as I can understand it this does not include our Zhujiecun as a township-level settlement, although it does have 朱加乡（ZhujiaXiang）as one of the 19 townships in 1997, now seemingly reorganised into one township-level town and nine township-level townships; per same and the top entry on the National Bureau of Statistics page here 朱加村 or Zhujiacun is one of the village-level entries under 甘丹曲果镇 which I think is our Lhünzhub though google translate gives me the Chinese name of Gandanquguozhen; the Zhujiecun on Google Maps is located between Chunduixiang, Kazixiang and Qianggaxiang (强嘎乡) which probably corresponds with one of the ?Tibetan? names in our county list, which all have articles but don't seem to have this kind of information; even the zh wikipedia doesn't get as far as entries at the village level, and since there seem to be reorganisations these may go out of date and be a push to maintain accurately; I think it would be much more helpful for Lhünzhub County to be properly maintained, with Chinese and Tibetan names and scripts and a good source; I'm not confident to add this detail myself; other language wikipedias seem to be merrily translating the English page as it stands, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this isn't a deletion criteria, but this page does not meet my personal standard of what an article is (third paragraph of this essay), and therefore I'm calling for the axe anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with the length requirement - say you're looking for a temple and you find a one liner that says it was founded in a, dedicated to b, is located in x, y, z, gives the english and local names and scripts, has an interwiki link, and a hard reference, that can be one line and an invaluable start and pointer, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete based on personal criteria, we judge an article based on the criteria for inclusion and subsets thereof. A short article is a stub, and if you deleted every stub, half the articles at Wikipedia would be lost. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No loss there. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Never get deceived by looking at an article and judging it by the number of words. Every article on Wikipedia has a potential to expand itself into a real one. This particular village could have a large population, as many of them actually do. I see that I've been mentioned here, so I would like to say that it would seem a waste to delete articles that have potential. Jaguar (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google satellite view shows a field. I have no doubt that more substantial settlements will have more sources covering them, which could permit us to build a decent article; but with this one all we have is an assertion that a settlement exists. This is not an AfD for "notable settlements which could be expanded sometime", it's an AfD for Zhujiecun. Do you have a policy-based reason to keep it? bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as we are an encyclopedia, and any place on a map (above) seems perfectly logical to include. As to deleting due to size, WP:TOOLITTLE clearly says that this is an argument with no merit at AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way does it satisfy WP:N? bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The locality appears on some unknown number of maps, presumably many, which are reliable sources (albeit not in depth ones). It also appears in census data, which is more in-depth, and is presumed to appear in reports in local news sources that are not readily available to us at this time, and probably in numerous other kinds of publication. These things pretty-much automatically happen for inhabited places, which is why we assume that all inhabited places meet WP:N. JulesH (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And kudos to Maculosae tegmine lyncis who continues to impress me greatly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are enough sources now to demonstrate notability. First Light (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As long as it is a place that can be verified with sources, then it's notable, per the gazetteer part of the pillar on what Wikipedia is. Silverseren^C 06:17, 2 June 2012 (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.