Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dah Hanu

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 Procedural keep. The nomination has been struck-out as the work of a sock, and it does not appear to me that anyone is suggesting deleting the article. The question of whether to redirect it, as well as the other editing disputes that have arisen during this discussion, are not matters to be resolved here; I would urge the involved editors to discuss these on an appropriate talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dah Hanu

Dah Hanu (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)

There are now two different entries on the twin villages of Dah and Hanu in Ladakh, as well as a third article on Aryan Valley, making a total of four articles on these two Ladakhi villages. That renders this article superfluous, hence I propose its deletion. Hassan Janhal (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)(sock strike. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Ladakh. Hassan Janhal (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - obviously, "Aryan valley" should redirect here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Joshua Jonathan:Yes, I had the similar idea that Aryan valley should be made a redirect to Dah Hanu because Aryan valley is a newer article compared to Dah Hanu, but Aryan Valley actually comprises four villages in addition to Dah and Hanu, according to the sources listed by the author on the article. Hassan Janhal (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's also correct. The main villages, though, seem to be these two. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dah and Hanu are the two main settlements; the other two are hamlets. In fact, the entire area, currently known as Aryan Valley, was formerly known as the Dah Hanu region.^[1][2] Hassan Janhal (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassan Janhal:, Dha village ,Hanu village ,Garkone village and Darchik village are the main four different villages . The Hamlets of each village is mentioned in their individual pages .

THE DHA HANU REFERS TO the village of Dha only and hanu village only. As it is clearly mentioned in the articles. Dha and hanu are in leh district . While Garkon and Darchik village are in Kargil District. Dha hanu( dha and hanu ) were only allowed for tourists visitor . Whil Garkone and Darchik are restricted for tourism.

On the other hand ,Dha Hanu region and Dha hanu district refers to all four village viz, dha,hanu ,garkon and Darchik. Garkon is one of the biggest village in these regions Minaro123 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Minaro123: I don't get your argument; we are discussing the fact that Dah and Hanu villages already have separate articles, negating the necessity for a Dha Hanu article that also discusses the same two villages. Furthermore, according to you, the terms "Aryan valley" and "Dha Hanu region" refer to the same four villages. Therefore, Aryan valley could be combined with "Dha Hanu" and redirected there, or Dah Hanu could be renamed "Aryan valley," and the newly created article "Aryan valley" could be deleted. Hassan Janhal (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Janhal,

Oppose: Keep Dha hanu twin village was created on 2004 , because at that time ,only dha hanu twin village was opened for tourists , It is 17 year old article . DHA HANU was a popular for Brokpa village of leh district . Even Former Jammu and Kashmir map have named Dha hanu in the map, dha hanu is a well known and branded name . Minaro123 (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The articles about Dah and Hanu consist of little more than geolocation and census data on occupation. The Aryan valley article survived its AfD by barely an hour before being stripped of everything but a discussion of why Mona Bhan thinks that the decision (of the l of an administrative area that no longer exists) to rename the area was somehow invalid. Apparently it is "government propaganda" to talk about a cultural museum created by the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. Far from a proliferation of articles on one topic, I see editors righting great wrongs who seem to believe that the Minaro culture should not be discussed in this encyclopedia, at all, because that is somehow "propaganda". Elinruby (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Aryan Valley per nomination Ideally, Aryan Valley should have been redirected to the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redrect to Aryan Valley, which is the current name of the region. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yesterday the Aryan valley article used to be an article about a region with well-defined boundaries and a distinct culture.

Ninety minutes after the AfD closed as "keep", the nominator in that AfD began a complete rewrite of Aryan valley, which has resulted in an article about how nefarious the name is and, to this effect, cites an article that the uninvolved editors said was irrelevant. The sections on jurisdictions, culture, and history have been removed. The section on the local museum was also removed and dismissed as "government propaganda". (By the autonomous Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (!)) The sourced section on the Line of Control and the Kargil War, which absolutely have been a factor in this border community, was removed as "clueless drafting".

I reverted the first changes because they were not discussed, only be myself reverted. When I warned Kautilya3 about edit warring, he/she demanded diffs and "proof", and TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) told me that I have no standing because Cinema of Africa is "incompetent". (Perhaps it is. I don't think I have ever looked at or touched that article, and therefore I wouldn't know. At most I may have done a copy edit a couple of years ago. The point is, TB at best is working too fast to be careful.)

Nonetheless. Even I *had* written the thing, the state of Cinema of Africa would most especially be irrelevant. I stopped reverting on Aryan valley, because this is a discretionary sanctions article. I did make several more attempts to discuss on the talk page. The most recent was greeted with the comment that "there is nothing to see here" because the section was already completely rewritten.

A dictionary, which the author had cited three times separately in order to include the relevant quotes, was summarily dismissed as "not reliable sources". Plural. I actually have not examined this source to see if it is self-published, which is a concept I have been introducing to the article author. But TB hasn't examined the article text well enough to notice that the three references were to one source, singular.

None of this smacks of a good faith attempt at collaboration with current. The collaboration amongst these three editors is obvious, although I don't understand it's reason, here they are, the same three editors, trying to merge the article out of existence. Certainly, material that was deleted from the Aryan valley article because it discussed the history of Dah has not been added to the article about Dah, so protestations that we should write articles about the individual villages don't inspire me with faith that the material will reach those articles.

Since yesterday's article about a location has been steam-rollered into an article about a name, it may seem, superficially, a good idea to merge. Especially given the errors of English, which are new.

But an AfD close just yesterday said that the location was independently notable and should have an article. I suggest that the nominating editors write their own article about why they think Jammu and Kashmir should have chosen another name, if they feel that this is so important. But it the name is not the most important attribute of this area, which just yesterday was found to be notable Elinruby (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN (or WP:ANI) is the venue you are aiming at. Ctrl+F "Cinema of Africa" on your u/p. Btw, who are these three editors - me, K3 and ? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not on Windows
2. Possibly you mean my talk page, as I once participated in a Cinema of Africa event. But if you were going to fish in my archives for the participation trophies, I would have thought that you would have read the page and noticed that somebody gave me a barnstar for dealing with *you*. You're hilarious. Look at my *actual* user page.

• My advice to you: assume less and read more. Elinruby (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean to say that your user-page does not feature a shiny badge about being the Editor of the Week for the week beginning December 1, 2019, which proclaims Cinema of Africa to be among your "Notable Work(s)" alongside Corruption in Brazil and Operation Car Wash?

  That said, if you have issues with my behavior, you shall take me to AN/ANI than bicker at an AFD and throw veiled aspersions about "colloboration" between editors. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As fascinating as it might be to discuss with you why you would choose to mock that, of all the other barnstars on that page, you are embarrassing yourself in a very public venue, and at this point I don't even care. I know what you are: one of the reasons the topic area needs discretionary sanctions. I will proudly display the one for trying to reason with you alongside all the others. Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For the umpteenth me, please take me to AN/ANI/AE (or wherever you feel like) since you have particularly strong feelings about my conduct. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Invalid nomination- This is a discretionary sanctions article. I just noticed who actually made this nomination: Hassan Janhal (talk · contribs) registered December 13, 2022, and has 265 edits. Elinruby (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you link to the policy that forbids AfD nomination of AC/DS article from such editors? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to discuss this with your editing partner Kautilya3, who tried to intimidate me with the template the first time I commented on the Aryan Valley AfD. Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why shall I ask of Kautilya3 to provide a link to the relevant policy when it is you who declared the Afd to be an "invalid nomination". If you believe that K3 had intimidated you, please try AN/ANI/AE.

  @Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark: are you acquainted with any rule prohibiting AfD nomination of ARBIPA articles by non-EC editors? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unaware of any such restriction. The Indo-Pakistani conflict was under general ECR for some time, but that restriction has since been subsumed into DS, and also this wouldn't obviously fall under it anyway. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Yeah, I am talking about EC restrictions. There is a recent precedent in the EE area -- if they can't edit the article they can't participate in the AfD. I am not sure what "subsumed into DS" means. Are you saying that EC restrictions are *not* in effect for IPA? Isn't that the minimum level of DS protection? Actual question, not sarcasm, although it does look to me like the TA needs more protection not less. Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EC restrictions were never in effect for ARBIPA except for sometime, for a subset of articles concerning the India-Pakistan conflict. The case in other AC/DS regimes like ARBPIA is different. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I realize they are different, which is why I asked. And, note, did not ask *you*. There are discretionary sanctions in place, and I am trying to clarify them. If in fact there are no EC restrictions on IPA, then my logic above is in error, although the intent of the rule where it exists is to prevent exactly what we have here, sockpoppets abusing AfD. I am not certain what effect this has on the close. I will look into some things, since Vanamonde93 hasn't answered yet Elinruby (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• CU note I have blocked the nominator as the sock of a banned user. I would close this procedurally, but I see that other editors in good standing have commented, so will leave the closure to someone else. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: There are not, and never have been, generic EC restrictions in the ARBIPA area. There were briefly community-authorized EC restrictions for the Indo-Pakistani conflict specifically, but these are no longer in place. There is a generic EC restriction in the ARBPIA area, which is perhaps the source of your confusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It quite possibly is, since I thought that was what I was talking about. Did I get the acronym wrong? Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Justification : Dha Hanu is only used for the twin villages that is Dha and hanu village of Leh District. Often named as Dha hanu valley . These page was created on 2004 , Until recently the Dha and hanu were only allowed for visitors and other brokpa village such as 'Garkon' and 'Darchik' was restricted due to border area . There are more than thousand website,articles etc. are talking about Dha hanu ,if we search in google .

However The Dha Hanu region or Dha hanu district ,is used for all villages that is Dha,hanu, Garkon and Darchik .

We have similar example of other region of naming too : Kashmir valley is used for only valley of Kashmir . And Kashmir region Is used for four region and valleys that includes Kashmir Valley , Jammu region , Ladakh region and Gilgit Baltistan region.

Conclusion: Since Dha hanu articles itself says it is a twin village that is Dha and hanu . And the Dha hanu valley( Dha and hanu village) that is ok Lhe district has been popular because of being opened for tourists, anthropologiest, rearacher etc . And The dha hanu valley was/is also in the official Map of Jammu and kashmir and Ladakh .

Proposal: We need to add a disambiguaty link in the articles to differentiate between ' Dha hanu valley and Dha hanu Region or District. Minaro123 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Dha Hanu district? Some other editors here seem to think not.Elinruby (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minaro123, you can comment all you like but can only cast one "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dha hanu region or Dha hanu district is a same thing . Dha hanu district is used during British Raj ,while Dha hanu region is used after British Raj for the same region . And Brokyul is a Ladakhi and tibetan name for these same region .Minaro123 (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have been working to help Minaro123 mitigate some legitimately-tagged RS problems in a group of related articles he has authored. This has been hampered by language issues and, more importantly, by POINTy interventions whose fervor I do not fully understand except that they seem to be politically motivated.

This area is only a few kilometers from a military front. Any discretionary sanctions that apply to that conflict should apply here. I would like for Minaro123 to be allowed to work. He is responsive once an issue is explained to him. I will continue to help him as long as he wants me to, although I am tied up today. I urge him to ping me if he has questions.

As to this AfD, It is my understanding that saying "Dah Hanu area" is akin to saying "Silicon Valley". Both are ill-defined areas that include several municipalities yet can be considered as separate entities whose components share certain attributes. I oppose deletion, and suggest draftifying if that's considered necessary, as it looks as though a trip to the drama boards may be necessary once I clarify which one has jurisdiction. Open to any helpful suggestions. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2023 (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.