Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuzaku

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzaku[edit]

This article has no content or context and trying to look up details for this "populated place" online has been fruitless. I'm not sure if this is a town, a village, a homestead or what, and the "reference" leads me nowhere. This map leads to what looks like a barren field with perhaps a few huts. I understand our inclusion guidelines are rather lax for populated places, but unless a figure can be listed on how many people live in a place, I think this would violate WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Them From Space 06:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Expand, don't delete. If it can't be expanded, it should be redirected to Serbia. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If any decent source can be found to confirm that this place exists then it should be kept, but a redirect to Serbia would be ridiculous. If the place isn't notable enough for an article then it certainly doesn't merit a mention in the article about the country, and if it's not mentioned there then a redirect would only serve to confuse readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should read WP:FAILN. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond verification that this place exists, I would argue that we would have to know what type of place it is in order to make the judgement. If we know of its existance but not what type of place it is the place would still fail WP:V. Them From Space 08:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, real place as shown by the GEOnet names database - the detailed ref now added. It's in Kosovo, not in the part of Serbia that isn't Kosovo - I'll leave it to others to worry about whether Kosovo is or isn't in Serbia, but suffice to say the place exists is verified and is notable, which could have been found out by the nom WP:BEFORE - it also clearly has content and context. Not pretty, but stubs often aren't and unpretty is no reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That information isn't anything more than I found before nominating this. Not all real places should have an article; my backyard is a real place yet is clearly isn't notable enough for an article. If this were shown to be a small settlement that would be one thing, but currently there is no information on this other than it is an "inhabited place", which to me isn't the amount of context required even for a stub. Them From Space 18:52, 30 June 2009 (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.