Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings Colony Shastripuram


 * 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. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 15:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Kings Colony Shastripuram

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ciridae (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. The settlement has received passing mention in reliable sources that cannot be considered significant coverage. (Note: I'd tagged this article for speedy deletion which was reverted by ‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.) Ciridae (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nom had tagged the article for speedy deletion as spam/excessively promotional, which was frankly absurd and gives little confidence that their curaory comment about sourcing is correct -- especially since it's contradicted by the very first article in the External Links section. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  04:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Apologies for not mentioning this earlier. A page with a similar title, Kings colony shastripuram, by the same author was speedy deleted under the G11 criteria. Ciridae (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per WP:NGEO. Also, how on Earth could this ever meet the WP:CSD? AusLondonder (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , how on earth does this satisfy WP:NGEO? How is this of any historic, social, economic, or architectural importance and where are the reliable sources for them? Please note that notability in this case cannot be inherited from events. Ciridae (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we thinking of the same notability guideline? The one I'm talking about states "legally recognised, populated places are presumed to be notable" AusLondonder (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , it seems we aren't. Are you talking about WP:GEOLAND? Because I think WP:GEOFEAT should apply, especially Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments. This is a colony of private residences and a non-notable one at that. Ciridae (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is simply a "building" or a "residence". You are correct is is a colony of private residences, just like any other neighbourhood. It therefore meets WP:GEOLAND as a "legally recognised, populated place". Here is an article in The Hindu about the neighbourhood. AusLondonder (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article contributes to notability in any manner. Local problems with power, roads etc are normal and this says absolutely nothing about the colony in question (no inherited notability). And I'd still say WP:GEOFEAT will apply here over WP:GEOLAND, since it explicitly covers private residences. And even if GEOLAND applies, this would fall under populated places without legal recognition since it is a housing development and legal recognition is not sourced here. But anyways, these are rather fine points under policy. Ciridae (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point to be honest. Most neighbourhoods consist of private residences. That's the norm. AusLondonder (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete at best as I wanted to comment sooner but was also eager to see if anyone else said something. Delete at best because this is still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. The sources (and other apparent coverage from reliable sources like The Hindu) are sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND's test for neighborhoods, and given the way our coverage of Hyderabad is structured (with more than 200 articles in Category:Neighbourhoods of Hyderabad, India), I don't think it would benefit the encyclopedia to delete a sourced and sourceable article about this particular neighborhood, nor is it feasible to merge this into a broader article.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * At best, since I'm noticing this is noticeably troubled by votes, I'm willing to change to Keep as this can be improved if needed and reconsider later if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  22:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I think the key to interpreting WP:GEOLAND is the phrase: "legally recognised, populated place", as pointed out. However,  I come to the opposite conclusion, since there is no sourcing to show that it is a "legally recognized" place. I can't find it on any census documentation. Therefore it falls to the second category, "Populated places without legal recognition". And in this instance, the coverage in the Hindu seems to indicate that it, just barely, passes WP:GNG. Unlike corporations, which require more than local coverage to show notability, neighborhoods may only have local notability. That seems to be the case in this instance.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:20, 27 April 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.