Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonse

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 speedy keep. No valid rationale for deletion given. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tonse[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)

In fact a hidden removal of an article. That article was bad, that is true, but to my opinion the arguments given make no sense. (Discussion before restoring after an undiscussed removal, unsourced while sources are there, creating link to disambiguation pages while refusing to fix them etc.) The Banner talk 17:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Disambiguations, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination resulting from an edit war. Deletion is not the answer to a content dispute. SpinningSpark 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Secretly removing an article and edit warring over it is right the answer? The Banner talk 19:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one's edit warring or doing anything secretly. I clearly advised on the talk page that I would be reverting to the version that complied with WP:V, waited over 12 hours without a reply in a discussion that had previously been quite active, and then reverted. Then your response is to make this absurd AfD to... delete... the article? For some reason? I don't understand your logic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to this undiscussed edit. The Banner talk 19:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - A WP:BOLD edit on an article whose content I was not able to verify, with explanation given in the edit summary, is hardly secret. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article has been blanked and someone objects, then AFD is one of the two possible ways forward (WP:ATD-R). – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, valid dab, no reason for deletion. MB 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a DAB page. As I have said repeatedly on the talk page, if the nominator had provided reliable sources to back up any of the content in the article, I would have thanked them for it and gone away. Instead they spent all of yesterday casting aspersions at me, dodging the idea of sourcing, and are now resorting to wasting the time of others with this absurd AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said on that talk page, you try to shift the blame to me. Not fix things. The Banner talk 23:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article, not dab. Guys, nobody is arguing for deletion, so "speedy keep" makes no sense. The page obviously doesn't work as a dab because "T(h)onse" isn't an ambiguous term. Tonse East and Tonse West aren't two unrelated places that just happen – by a miraculous coincidence – to be named as though they were the eastern and western parts of a single thing. As far as I'm able to tell from looking at a map and a random set of google hits, Tonse is a single, sprawling, settlement that for administrative purposes is divided into two (and possibly more) units. The article on that settlement was turned into a disambiguation page with the rationale, expressed on the talk page, that Thonse doesn't exist as a legal entity. I don't think that makes sense: London, for example, didn't have legal existence between 1986 and 2000, but if Wikipedia was around at the time I doubt anyone would have argued for London to be a disambiguation page simply listing the boroughs. Wikipedia's coverage of populated places shouldn't be organised around an enumeration of census tracts or municipal bodies, but on geographically and culturally meaningful entities, like villages and towns (it doesn't hurt to have coverage of census tracts, but that shouldn't happen at the expense of coverage of actual towns). If there's any change to be made, then that would be for the two Tonse stubs (and probably others, like Kemmannu and Hoode Beach) to be merged into Tonse. – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have any actual reliable substantive references to back up these assertions, or are you just making assumptions based on what you saw on Google Maps? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking for a reliable and substantive reference for the assertion that Tonse East is the eastern bit of Tonse? – Uanfala (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yes! If it's not a legal entity, it doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND automatically, so there needs to be some manner of sourcing in order to demonstrate that it meets the second bullet point of GEOLAND regarding populated places without legal recognition. Otherwise you're just looking at a map and making an assumption that might very well be incorrect. By analogy: the cities of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam have similar names, and if you looked at them on a map without knowing otherwise, you might think they were the eastern and western parts of a single thing, because they're smashed up against each other. Except they aren't, they're distinct cities that have never been the same city, and writing an article titled Greater Coquitlam that discussed both of them as a single entity would be incorrect. For all we know, given the complete absence of sourcing, the same goes for Tonse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I had looked at were these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Are they great? No, but they demonstrate that a place with the name exists and has coverage online; I don't think you can expect better online English sources for a random village in India. Do these pages say that Tonse is made up of Tonse East and Tonse West? No, but they have little reason to go into details about the structure of local government; relevant here is this community Facebook page: obviously that wouldn't qualify as an acceptable source, but the fact that what is says in the "About" section matches the description in the Wikipedia article is an indication that this description isn't seen as complete nonsense by the locals. – Uanfala (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just close this misplaced discussion. What should happen is that the article is left alone and protected if necessary (it doesn't matter if it is the wrong version because there's no reason for the next step to last more than a few days) and the talk page discussion continues calmly and without accusations. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2022 (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.