Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kundhanagurthy


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Kundhanagurthy

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Contested PROD. Unable to find any substantive coverage, falling short of the general notability guideline. NTox · talk 08:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess, geographical locations have inherent notability. So this may not be deleted. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  05:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY KEEP - Villages and other places are generally notable by virtue of existing as real places, as now proven by adding a Wikimapia link. Therefore neither PROD nor AfD should be necessary. I have copy-edited the article and added section headings. Since further citations are not required to prove notability I suggest a speedy keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Merely to clarify Wikipedia standards, is there a policy or guideline to assert this? I came across WP:NGEO, but it was an essay. Perhaps, if you are speaking from consensus, that it is an example of WP:IAR? My nomination merely reflects my hesitation to see an article with little possibility for verifiable content. Thanks for your help. NTox · talk 09:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not a great one for standards but Notability does say "Once defined, notabiity is established by convention, such as considering all names of places to merit placement in an encyclopedia, and can thus be objectively assessed as inherent notability..." and this principle does seem to be widely followed in practice. Ultimately the justification for it is simply that people may reasonably expect to look a place up in Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think this would be an interesting community discussion, if it hasn't already been one. For good or bad, it seems to me to be a use of the WP:IAR clause to make exceptions for geographic places that don't have significant coverage. My personal expectation is to get a comprehensive summary from an encyclopedia article, but I'll stand by the consensus. Interesting article, by the way (Notability). However, I've tagged that quoted statement as unverified in the referent. NTox · talk 10:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe there have been dozens, nay hundreds, of such discussions already. Probably there are reams and reams of essays and guidance, too, but as I'm not an insomniac, touch wood, I haven't gone there. ;-}   Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's been the general consensus as long as I can remember that verifiable, legally recognized communities are inherently notable. It's been so at least long enough for it to show up on the common outcomes page WP:NPLACE.  If we can find somewhere that shows that a government in India recognizes this place as existing, it should be kept.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmartin11 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Looks like a real village to me.  Long standing convention is that all settlements no matter how small are inherently notable.  --Oakshade (talk) 20:12, 1 March 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.