Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarbulak grassland

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 of the debate was Delete. Avi 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarbulak grassland

I'm not 100 % sure this is not a legitimate article, but in its present state it's extremely thin. One question springs to mind: What makes this particular grassland encyclopedic? A relevant Google search reveals nothing useful. I know Google isn't an oracle, but at the moment I really don't see why this article should stay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs).

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As exciting as grass is, WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No useful Google hits, and the author has made no attempt to make it clear why this should be included. RidG Talk 01:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Fuhai? Maybe in 30 years when Wikipedia is more mature and all we have left to write about are obscure geographic elements in mainland China, the fact that this grassland is in that county will be helpful to us. Recury 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article doesn't tell us how this grassland is better than just any other grassland. --Coredesat talk 04:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's legitimate (to some extent), and I've (admittedly) created much less relevent articles that have managed to grow and drop their stub tag. Black-Velvet 09:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - While this could very well be a legitimate location, no Google hits and no sources provide no verification that this actually exists. Is there anything that would make this place different than say, New Jersey grassland or Wichita empty fields? Wickethewok 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is "a fertile area for pasture that supports the famous Xinjiang sheep which are supposedly 'big as a cow.'" Recury 16:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Ste4k 19:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no reason why this should be included. Does not seem to have any sort of notability - if it was ntoable enough to have been mentioned on a nature program or similar, google would have turned something up. As it was I got absoloutely nothing worthwhile. Viridae^Talk 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Why should this go and the other umpteen geography stubs on Wikipedia stay? Lurker 10:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Response - The umpteen geography stubs on Wikipedia at least have some evidence that they exist. Wickethewok 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple web pages that mention it being in Fuhai if you google it. Yes, it's boring, but it exists. Recury 02:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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.