Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kemundel


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Kemundel

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Location doesn't seem notable enough to merit an article. When I came across the article and noticed the POV issues, I tried to do research to fix or cite the claims in the page but could not locate any references relating to it except for a few random mentions in a couple of pages of only the locations name.  Zac  Bowling  (user 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 
 * Delete. Settlements are usually inherently notable, but I can't find any proof that this place even exists. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Neutral until there's confirmation that this is an actual settlement. I having trouble finding any. --Oakshade (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC) It does seem to be a confirmed geographical named location. --Oakshade (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Geographical locations are inherently notable and I have added few citations related to this place in the article, and have cleaned up the article as well. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 06:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a real, verified place. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2007 (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.