Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambir, Gambir


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Gambir, Gambir

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambir,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. SatuSuro 06:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep All populated places are notable.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment you have to be kidding - find something that justifies WP:N, WP:RS, for such low level populated areas, Gambir is notable not its component parts SatuSuro 09:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per long-standing AfD precedent, verifiable populated places are notable, partly because Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer and partly because sources can almost always be found for these articles. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the precedent according to that argument is that sub-level localities can be kept (at a rough count that allows something like 7,000 extra stubs with no reliable sources, no notability, and literally place cruft to pollute the Indonesian project - as if Indonesian soccer players arent a scourge on the Indonesian project you want kelurahans as well? Nah strongly object so such an assertion that even a gazzetteer does not have sub level settlements as a valid addition. SatuSuro 08:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember that this encyclopedia exists to provide information to readers, not for the convenience of editors, and information is not pollution. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * reply - information in non-notable village subdivisions that are created by fly by editor which are never improved apart from having postcode and size info - is hardly of benefit to any reader... SatuSuro 10:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable as named geographical feature/inhabited place. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep real place=keep. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gambir, Jakarta. I was about to close this as WP:SNOW per WP:OUTCOMES - Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source - but in checking Google Maps...this isn't an independent community. It's a sub-division/neighbourhood of Jakarta. And (WP:OUTCOMES again): Smaller suburbs are generally merged, being listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments). - The Bushranger One ping only 09:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to just be a neighborhood, though. According to the article, it's an administrative village, which are official subdivisions of districts, which are official subdivisions of provinces. Since Jakarta is officially a province, its districts and administrative villages are official units of government. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:49, 4 April 2012 (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.