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The result was Keep as withdrawn, it meets WP:GEOLAND anyway. (non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bermani Ilir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I declined the speedy delete because it wasn't clear. However, I do believe deletion is in order. This article about a place is unsourced and unconfirmed, and I can find no online sources to support it. Therefore, I believe it fails WP:GNG. If sources were found, I'll happily withdrawal the nomination--but it needs a few editors to review and discuss. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related articles for the same premise.

Also nominating the following related articles for the same premise.

• Muara Kemumu
• Kabawetan
• Seberang Musi
• Ujan Mas
• Tebat Karai District
• Kepahiang District

These articles are similar and should be discussed together.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article Merigi appears to be in good shape. It's the one district in Template:Kepahiang Regency that appears to have some work in it. It may well be that the subjects in question will pass WP:GNG and I'm just not able to confirm.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep In accordance of WP:GEOLAND although I think they will stay as permastubs, sources https://pilkada2015.kpu.go.id/bengkuluprov/kepahiang/bermani_ilir , https://kepahiangkab.bps.go.id/publication/2022/02/25/afd0e5da85009ffddb884ca3/kabupaten-kepahiang-dalam-angka-2022.html Nyanardsan (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also comment, Kepahiang District is the capital of the regency which has good chances to be a decent C or B-class article given enough work (might work on that later). Other districts are harder but they are mentioned in routine BPS statistics I mentioned above. If we disagree with WP:GEOLAND, I propose it to be merged on the regency article itself with the exception of the Kepahiang District as it is the main town of the regency itself. Nyanardsan (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. eviolite (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nyanardsan. There's no question that these are real, populated districts (government source [1], Google hits), so they meet the criteria for WP:GEOLAND. eviolite (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn all thanks for the participation. Please take the time to edit and add the sources to all the articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:35, 25 May 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.