Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agol


 * 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. No prejudice against renomination of individual articles. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Agol

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One line article with no reference since 2012. A neighbourhood article with no information or no practical purpose. Nizil (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Most articles in Category:Neighbourhoods in Ahmedabad have similar problems. Some of them have more information (mostly with no reference) than a sentence but not beyond demographics or local places. These articles have no practical purpose. They were created by . -Nizil (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So I am also nominating the following related pages (no reference/single sentence article):


 * I am also nominating the following related pages (some information, mostly demographic, poor references):
 * I am also nominating the following related pages (some information, mostly demographic, poor references):
 * I am also nominating the following related pages (some information, mostly demographic, poor references):
 * I am also nominating the following related pages (some information, mostly demographic, poor references):
 * I am also nominating the following related pages (some information, mostly demographic, poor references):
 * I am also nominating the following related pages (some information, mostly demographic, poor references):
 * I am also nominating the following related pages (some information, mostly demographic, poor references):
 * I am also nominating the following related pages (some information, mostly demographic, poor references):
 * I am also nominating the following related pages (some information, mostly demographic, poor references):
 * I am also nominating the following related pages (some information, mostly demographic, poor references):


 * (Large article, poor to few references)
 * (Large article, poor to few references)
 * (Large article, poor to few references)
 * (Large article, poor to few references)
 * (Large article, poor to few references)
 * (Large article, poor to few references)
 * (Large article, poor to few references)
 * (Large article, poor to few references)
 * (Large article, poor to few references)
 * (Large article, poor to few references)
 * (Large article, poor to few references)
 * (Large article, poor to few references)


 * I am nominating these much for now.-Nizil (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am nominating these much for now.-Nizil (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am nominating these much for now.-Nizil (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep All per WP:GEOLAND and close. This AfD is a massive abuse of the AfD process with an objective to delete enmasse village stubs in one go without giving time for discussion. Agol is a decent sized village with a population of 4500, Can be located as this Google Map link shows. Has its own post office and Census data. Such stubs should be expanded and not deleted. If you cant be bothered to expand them then let some one else do it. Ramol has a verifiable link that states it had a population of 27 thousand in 2001. Obvious and easy keep per WP:GEOLAND. If there are one or two stubs that you feel genuinely merit a deletion then please nominate them separately. This AfD Bunching is unacceptable to me.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  16:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

according to WP:GEOLAND, populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. But: it also says populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighbourhoods etc Indian government or census doesnt have the concept of "neighbourhoods". However, government/census recognises "nagar", "colony", "mohalla" (they are mostly used as synonyms for each-other though). So, if the subject is part of city or village, or the so called "neighbourhood", then WP:GNG should be applied, otherwise everything deserves an article per WP:GEOLAND. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Usernamekiran the only thing missing in ur line is an obvious Keep. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * lol. That's true. I would have done that, but then there are few articles like Anand Nagar (Ahmedabad). —usernamekiran(talk) 17:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep all and nominate one by one if required., it would be really hard to discuss more than one article at one go. May I suggest that you withdraw the bulk nomination and then gradually nominate them individually if you feel they are not notable?. In some cases, if a standalone article is not feasible (particularly for small neighbourhoods), it could be merged into the article of a larger entity. If possible please nominate them slowly (like 2 or 3 a week), since it takes time to search for sources as well. I am willing to help out with finding references, but it will be difficult to find all in one go.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep All are notable per WP:GEOLAND and this is a blatant abuse of WP:MULTIAFD. Smartyllama (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep as the articles nominated in bulk do not fall under same category to have a common AFD. Some are census towns and some are neighbourhoods within census towns. Both of these have different notability standards and we shouldn't waste editors' time in discussing all together. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination. After reading all comments, I agree that bulk nomination will not be fruitful. I will nominate one by one. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2019 (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.