Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union councils of Jessore District

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Union councils of Jessore District

[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)

Wikipedia is not a directory. We can easily listed the Unions/Wards by using category. Rocky Masum (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rocky Masum (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. ~Yahya (✉) • 11:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Category is not enough. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 14:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Not enough" to do what? What advantages of a list are being utilized or realistically could be utilized in 64 lists like this? Each sub-list already appears in the article about the relevant upazila (sub-district). In the articles Wikipedia has about Bangladesh's 4,554 unions (sub-sub-districts) the total number of secondary sources is close to zero. Most of the union articles are no more than three sentence stubs, stating the parent administrative division, the area, population, and official website. WP:GEOLAND keeps them from being deleted, but perhaps they should all be merged to lists like this. Then the list would serve a purpose, that of a gazetteer. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as well Sahaib (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A note if this is closed as delete: the other union councils of Bangladesh, which can be found in in this category, should also be deleted. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Yes, Wikipedia is not a directory per WP:DIRECTORY but does this policy cover this article? There are seven items listed on Wikipedia is not a directory. They are Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, Genealogical entries, Directories, directory entries, electronic program guides, or resources for conducting business, Sales catalogues, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, and Simple listings. None of these applies to this particular article. This article needs to be improved but I do not see a good rationale for deletion. Take List of counties in Utah, which can be represented by a category, is a well-written article about a similar topic. Since most of the union councils in Bangladesh do not have articles but do qualify for articles; lists such as this one are a great resource and very useful for someone seeking information and trying to create articles on unions of Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In List of counties in Utah, we get a brief view. But in the mentioned article we only find some names only. It would be fine, if there is more information along with the names.--Rocky Masum (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is neither here nor there; the question is whether the article is notable. Deletion is not for improvements.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly legit article subject. Listing can be improved, with maps etc. --Soman (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can’t see any policy-based rationale for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2021 (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.