Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bura-Chaty

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. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bura-Chaty

No reason given for notability. Citation of WP:NPT in favour however no criteria in it passed. Suggest deletion under WP:N and WP:NOT BigHairRef | Talk 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also discussion on mine and another's talk page for an opposed view. BigHairRef | Talk 00:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep All populated settlements have some claim to notability. Given the few articles that exist on large Central Asian countries such as this any expansion really is a step in the right direction. These countries are huge, and to only have 10-15 articles on places within it shows how unbalanced this encyclopedia is. I think you;d be surprised that this is actually resembles a town not the hamlet of two houses you seem to be imagining here. Personally I think it is much needed to add articles like Karakol on here and try to see some development world wide ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is likely that most reasonably sized settlements in the world would have recieved some reliable independant coverage, and would therefore pass the WP:N criteria. If no significant sources have yet been found, it doesn't mean they don't exist. There are tens of thousands of settlement articles with even less info and sources than this one. Cxz111 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest and speediest keep possible as per Blofeld and Cxz111. Just another example of how systemic bias brings down the project with excessive afds. Editor of the wiki 10:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - location is referenced in any number of google sites as per here, although I acknowledge lack of population data. Give the article a chance to expand a bit and if necessarily revisit again in several months if notability concerns still exist then. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Update This article just needs some TLC while more data comes in.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all of the above. SWik78 (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per...everybody. (Late to the party, as usual.) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No questionThright (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright[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.