Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doddakallahalli


 * 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) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Doddakallahalli

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't show notability. Poorly written. The Weak Willed 18:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It barely qualifies as English text. JBsupreme (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It took less than five minutes to clean up the article, it's a verifiable location. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was very kind of you Spaceman but I don't believe this meets our guidelines for inclusion. Can we do any better than "ourvillageindia.org" ?  JBsupreme (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that our general requirement for places per past precedent and consensus is that they should be verifiable and currently or previously inhabited, I believe the above source is sufficient - it's reliable and shows the population per the last census. There are a lot of other refs available online to show existence too, like that Priyanath has posted below. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes ("Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source"), and verified by sources. See also this mention in The Hindu. Priyanath talk 21:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Priyanath. Edward321 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a verifiable village (see this news item of the Chief Minister's overnight stay). However there is a basic problem: according to this document (4.2MB Word file) from the Karnataka State Literacy Mission authority the village is in Kunigal taluk of Tumkur district and as of the 2001 census had a population of 722. The OneVillageIndia website lists a different Taluk, district and population. Are we talking of two villages here, redistricting and stale information at the government website, or wrong information at OneVillageIndia(why is that RS ?) ? We need to resolve this point, since if we are going to have a one line stub, we better get that one line right! Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are two different villages, in two different Taluks in two different districts. The one at this AfD is the OneVillageIndia one in Kolar district. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 07:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so too, since there are several references and databases listing each. I'll create the Doddakallahalli, Tumkur district page, and propose that the current Doddakallahalli article be moved to Doddakallahalli, Kolar district, with Doddakallahalli becoming a disambiguation page (hope that makes sense!). Of course, now its hard to tell which village the newspaper references, were talking of! Abecedare (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your solution of a dab page is best. That was good research to find those other sources. Somewhere, sometime, it would be helpful to have a page with such resources for proving the existence of small India towns. This seems to be an increasingly recurring theme. Priyanath talk 15:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a hat note from the primary (Kolar district village) to the Tumkur district village. If we find a third village by the same name, we can go for a dab. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 16:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to consider the Kolar village "primary" ? If not, we should use a disambiguation page per WP:DAB: "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.". Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason other than what got here first and the respective populations, the hat note was easy, so I did it. If the page is changed to a dab, then the associated links will also have to be changed; from the look of it, I can't figure out how many are template links and how many are article links (I suspect none, though). - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Village exists, so "Doesn't show notability" and "Poorly written" are irrelevant. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep real place=kept. If poorly written were a criterion for deletion, perhaps all but our featured content would be up for deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2009 (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.