Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karangsari, Central Java

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. We have generally held that for a populated place to meet GEOLAND, reliable sources just need to verify its existence. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karangsari, Central Java[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability not established JarrahTree 00:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 00:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty much any populated place (such as a village, which this is) is considered notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of how many totally non notable villages there are in Indonesia ? JarrahTree 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of how many villages overall there were, until you posted on my user talk page that "According to the 2019 report by the Ministry of Home Affairs, there are 8,488 urban villages and 74,953 rural villages in Indonesia." I don't know to be certain as to whether they are notable or not. However, for comparison, do we consider the Communes of France, of which there are over 36,000, to be inherently notable as populated places? Indonesia has more than twice as many villages as France has communes -- but Indonesia has four times the population of France, so the average Indonesian village is more populous than the average French commune. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the guidelines by which the whole project works - WP:NOT and quite a few others - population is nothing if there is not adequate WP:N, and WP:RS for WP:V - most villages can be and shuold be incorporated by name into the next level of government above - where they can safely sit without inhabiting stub space where they can never be expanded - as there are no WP:RS for non notable locations - as that would failWP:V... But hey most non indonesians have no idea of the sheer volume of populated places - or the totally non notable aspects... If every commune of france has a unique item for V - reliable sources about history and context, I would have not a problem with that - the tens of thousands of Indonesian villages have no separate history or context or anything for V. if anything they are listed in items for regencies and higher levels of government - apart from that there is no distinguishing feature apart from the name - believe me I have walked through a few hundred in Bantul regency some time back... JarrahTree 02:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not remotely notable, and I cannot see this article ever being expanded. Davidelit (Talk) 10:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not very notable but still it doesn't fulfill criteria for deletion.

2. It fulfills verfiability and reliability and a large part of notability criteria. 3. Tens of thousands of articles exist about little to unknown places or ghost towns. A village with over 5000 inhabitants is more important than a ghost town. Shaheen Hassan (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing to establish further that it simply exists - the inherent aspect of WP:N in most projects is there is something more than simply existing - that it has something historical or that extends notability beyond existing that there are items that substantiate some presence in WP:RS other than lists or regency lists. whether articles exist for unknown places or ghost towns is irrelevent - importance is not specifically designated in the criterion of notability.

The point by other editors who might query as to whether the stub can be extended further than the initialedit - the potential for expansion is an often discussed topics on afds - there are no signs of further material to expand the article. In some projects that is an automatic reason for deletion.

The need for an Afd such as this one is that there have not been any recent discussions over the issue in the Indonesian project as to whether all 80,000 villages continue to have random additions to the project where there are not WP:RS even from indonesian sources - let alone english sources. JarrahTree 13:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC) A government source is considered a reliable source.Shaheen Hassan (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly exists and is a recognised village. We keep all officially recognised settlements per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a second choice to keeping, the page could be redirected to the next larger geographic unit that has an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The next larger geographic unit that has an article, Pemalang Regency is too large in both size and population for Karangsari to be redirected to it. As Necrothesp pointed out, Wikipedia considers all legally recognised populated places as notable even if they have very low population or abandoned. This village is has 5015 inhabitants according to 2010 government census which is larger than many towns. Shaheen Hassan (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia generally considers legally recognized places notable and this is no different. There are little to no reliable sources in English, but this news organization mentions it and so does this one. There could be more sources, but these are the first two news sites (as opposed to blog sites) I came across in a quick google search in Indonesian. Article is notable, but requires an editor that can translate Indonesian for the rest of us. (Google translate was used to make this.) Danre98^{(talk|contribs)} 15:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets criteria of WP:GEOLAND. I am not impressed by the article quality but deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2020 (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.