Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khan Garh Tehsil

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Garh Tehsil[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)

Reviewed during NPP. I think two reasons for the nomination. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. SNG would be the only possibility and not even the requirements for that are met. More simply, the only reference give does not even mention it and in a search I can't find anything to even confirm that it even exists, not even on Google maps. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The place exist. See Khangarh, Sindh, this and this--—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those (sourceless pages in the Wayback machine) are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Garh and Khangarh are same. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Thanks. So I think that that reinforces that it already has an article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Saqib. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Those are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but the city and the tehsil are two different things. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: ??? I don't understand. Saqib gave sources for Khangarh and said that it's the same thing as this AFD. You said keep based on those sources, but when I said Khangarh already has an article you said that this AFD article is not the same thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib’s sources verify that Khangarh/Khan Garh is a local government area (tehsil). As a local government area any tehsil is notable. Tehsils may or may not be approximately similar to towns, and the fact that we already have an article on the town doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also have an article on the tehsil. Is what I meant. Mccapra (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has only one reference which is dead but is archived at the wayback machine. And what's at the wayback machine does not even mention the topic. That said, I'm going to step back and let others decide. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason that we have articles on Schenectady County, New York and Schenectady, New York. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether or not a Tehsil is suitable to have an article. The question is: do we have a suitable source that says that the TEHSIL of Khan Garh exists? North8000 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] and [4] all easily available from Ghotki District show that Khan Garh or Khangarh is a verifiable tehsil/taluka. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. Local government units at the Tehsil level are routinely kept on Wikipedia even in the absence of GNG level sourcing. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy-based discussion is needed. Just because something exists, does not make it notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To simplify, I'd agree (and already agreed) that a Tehsil meets NGeo should be kept without needing GNG sources. I looked at all of the sources noted, and from what I can see none of them is a wiki-suitable confirms that the TEHSIL of Khan Garh exists. The only reference in the article is to a sources list in the wayback machine which seems to say it doesn't exist. Others are ambiguous, don't say that it is a Tehsil, and seem to be referring to Khangarh, Sindh . Others are to blank sourceless pages in the wayback machine (including the only two cites at the Ghotki District article and even those don't really say that it exists. Can somebody find ONE wp:RS that clearly says that it exists as a Tehsil? And maybe even put it in the article because the article currently the article has ZERO wp:RS sources, and even the one non-RS source that it has (a sourceless page in the wayback machine) doesn't even claim that it exists. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to being deliberately obtuse here, as Eluchil404 in his reply to you above listed sources (I checked the first and the third, which is enough) that confirm that this is a tehsil. If you didn't know that a taluka is the same as a tehsil then just look in your favourite encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit the "deliberately" crap. Beyond that, I've done my best here. I'm going to unwatch this and let y'all decide. Anybody please ping me if I may be of assistance. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per Phil Bridger. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Replaced the existing archived reference that did not mention Khan Garh Tehsil with an archived reference from a Government of Pakistan website that clearly mentions it (page 18 of 38 - Khangarh Taluka). Also added a Dawn newspaper reference mentioning 'Khangarh taluka'...Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work and a huge change. That makes it Keep for me. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2024 (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.