Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanagala


 * 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Kanagala

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Least Important and it is a village not known to anybody. No information available and not fit to be a article KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  13:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No information beyond the census listing. Could be kept if some significant local sources are found. LaMona (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately delete as there are actually quite a few of these and they're still being started but there's simply no good sorucing even minimally to suggest improvement. Geographic places usually pass with WP:NGEO but there's not much here. SwisterTwister   talk  06:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – As per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable..." This village has a population of 7,192, which is documented and legally recognized by the government of India , as per the official Census of India. Also keep as per WP:FIVEPILLARS, because Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. North America1000 16:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   ♠  22:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - we have to keep this stub as per existing guidelines provided above. --Bhadani (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep all villages are notable per WP:GEOLAND, and there is no reason to delete - the government of India knows of this village and its 7000 people disproving the nominator's statement to the contrary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - This should have been a speedy keep as soon as NA1000 posted his link to an Indian government website demonstrating that this is a recognized village for national census purposes. Being held over once was unnecessary, twice was flat out bizarre. Click the link and we are done per WP:GEOLAND. Bad nomination and lame debate facilitation... Carrite (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2015 (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.