Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tharakiya (2nd nomination)

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 delete. As pointed out by the delete !votes, we keep populated places per WP:GEOLAND if their existence is verifiable. This does not seem to be the case here. So Why 06:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tharakiya[edit]

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

Extremely little information can be found about this place. In my view, it's pretty far from meeting WP:GNG. Also, no arguments were brought up to keep this page in the previous AfD. It's almost identical to what it looked like back then. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 01:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a populated place, don't we keep those? Also, like at another AFD ongoing or perhaps more than one, there is no effort made in the AFD nomination to suggest any alternative. Perhaps it could be redirected to, and covered in, an article about a larger area that includes it. One could do such a redirect without an AFD. Is the purpose of the AFD to tally up one's personal deletions record? --do ncr am 18:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should at least be redirected. There's not nearly enough info on it to warrant a standalone article. I started this AfD in case consensus is against me for some reason. This has nothing to do with my deletion record. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 20:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. Let me note that your reply suggests that the article should not be deleted. What specific alternative to deletion do you suggest? Redirect to what exactly? Can you put some coverage of this topic in whatever target article you prefer, with a Template:Anchor that a redirect could be targeted at?

In the absence of more specifics, I think bringing community attention to this AFD is not helpful at all, and it should be closed "Keep". --do ncr am 23:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and delete are kinda the same thing if you ask me. Either way there's no content left on the page. If we redirect then I guess we could redirect to the next highest subdivision. Maybe Garhwa district? Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 02:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hindi spelling "ठरकिया" gets a a couple of hits, but nothing that would enhance notability. I am adding the Hindi spelling in case the article is kept. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a sub village/hamlet which doesn't seem to have its own panchayat (panchayat is usually the lowest administrative unit). Neither can I find it in the census records. There is scarce information available in English or Hindi. The hamlet doesn't even have its own post office or police station.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while we normally keep populated places if we can verify their existence, this article fails WP:V. Like DreamLinker, I was unable to find the village on the 2011 Indian Census site. I was also unable to find it on the NGA's GEOnet database which is typically very complete. No problems with recreation if we can verify the information later. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2017 (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.