Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bommanahalli


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes  04:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Bommanahalli

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability Tylr00 (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Bommanahalli Adding Articles for deletion/Bommanahalli
 * Speedy Keep - Nonsensical non-sequitur one-word deletion rational. What exactly makes this not of "Notability"?  Looks like a real place,, referred to as such in the press,  and the census. --Oakshade (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Notable means being worthy of attention or notice; remarkable. Reading this article, this does not appear to be satisfied Tylr00 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
 * Under this logic, a real place is pretty vague, as a street corner and a bus stop are real places. As far as being in the press, it appears in this article that the only noteworthy press refers to the office buildings in which the local people work. I don't know that every census-designated place is noteworthy, either. Tylr00 (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00


 * Keep The matter concerns Greater Bangalore. BBMP is the city government. The BBMP managed area is divided into ten zones, which have their own administrative bodies as well ("joint commissioner" being the mini-mayor of the zone). Ours is one of the zones. There already existed an article for each of the zones except for one. There is also plenty of coverage of all of the zones. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This article has existed for 10 years, and nothing notable has been added to it in this time. Tylr00 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
 * It's a populated, legally recognized place as per WP:GEOLAND. This category out of all has the most minimal of requirements to be fit as an article, and our article exceeds that little limit by far. I've seen tiny villages inhabited by 30 people and only verified by fringe travel blogs and long-forgotten, dusty thousands-listing government registeries be preserved at AfD. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the link you provided, places defined for the purpose of taking a census are not notable. It goes on to say that notable places are not defined by population, but by the richness of their history. Tylr00 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
 * Further reason to delete. According to Notability: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Tylr00 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
 * You already nominated which is counted as a delete vote, so I instruct you to strikethrough or remove your boldened vote... And this zone isn't for "taking a census". This is a smaller administrative ward with its own administrators. On top of that it's also a specific suburb known to the people as shown by the articles. The general notability guideline is the general notability guideline like it says. In practice things can be different when it comes to locations. Even on top of that we've already covered the general notability guideline with the articles... Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed my the boldened delete from my comment as etiquette to the discussion, but remember that the votes are not counted quantitatively, but qualitatively. This article was created in 2006 and still does not convey anything notable about the subject, and as such has not established notability Tylr00 (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
 * That's what I would tell you after you inserted the second vote. And there again are the articles which can be used to expand the article, like with the many mentions of the lakes nearby. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is opportunity for information on the region on a boarder page, such as the BBMP or similar Tylr00 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
 * No, just... How about you just read this: Articles for deletion. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns and it seems to me that you are passionate for this area, but the article is not useful to users of Wikipedia. As such, I have nominated it for deletion Tylr00 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00


 * Keep. A suburb with population of more than 200,000.  Also this is eligible for "Speedy Keep" as there is no deletion rationale provided. -- do  ncr  am  04:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable place indeed. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 12:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Easily satisfies WP:GEOLAND and incomplete explanation in nomination. Smartyllama (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2016 (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.