Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channal

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 merge. Well, technically the result is "no consensus" but since the merge has already been done and the only objection was a procedural one I think we can let it lie. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Channal

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

Duplicate of Old Channal Wikishagnik (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment – Channal and Old Channal are two distinct villages located in different locations. Check out the satellite maps available from the coordinates listed on the upper right-hand corner of each page. While their names are similar, and they may be related, Channal is entirely geographically separate from Old Channal. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as per Wikipedia policy A10 this page would be eligible for a deletion as it merely copies the content of another page. I am sure their would be five different streets and a thousand houses in the neighborhood that have different geographic coordinates but that does not mean that each deserves an article. If you have reasonable references to support the creation of two different articles, then please update the article accordingly. If there is nothing notable about this locality then the article should be deleted. -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verified geographic places are usually worthy of a standalone article on Wikipedia. See WP:MAPOUTCOMES. This is a very basic stub article that could use expansion; it's not a copy of another page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting the wrong policy, WP:MAPOUTCOMES is for geographical features like lakes, rivers, monuments etc. and I don't believe the Channal either of those features. The policy for villages etc is WP:NPLACE which requires reliable and verifiable source to establish notability (WP:NOTE) justifying a new article creation. A simple set of coordinates is not enough. The policy also states Smaller suburbs are generally merged, being listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments) and I am sure there is no legally seperate municipality. -Wikishagnik (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing, WP:NPLACE is an essay, and is not a policy whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I've boldly merged Channal into Old Channal, with a redirect to Old Channal. Revised my !vote here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your willingness to listen to alternate views, you are advised not to change articles while in an AfD debate (i.e. merge or whiteout).-14:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:38, 9 October 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.