Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gampalagudem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was nom (me) withdrawn. Not sure waht I was thinking in nomming, thanks everyone for showing me sense! Giggy UCP 23:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gampalagudem

Gampalagudem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Ghits don't indicate notability, and there is nothing to indicate anything special about this place. Giggy UCP 01:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a well established precedent that populated locations are inherently notable. This mandal gets 59,000 Google hits, which is more than sufficient to establish its existence and, therefore, notability. Deor 02:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    But none of those ghits assert notability. Existence isn't enough to get you through. Giggy UCP 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Putting this in terms that you might understand, the administrative division is roughly equivalent to Caloundra City Council in your neck of the woods. It's just as notable as that. Deor 02:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
But where's the proof? That's the problem. Giggy UCP 02:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Proof: [1]. The population is 68,112.--(Sumanth|Talk) 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but needs another source or two. Realkyhick 03:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per common AFD outcomes. This is an entity larger than a village, so something like a U.S. township. As long as it can be verified, there's no reason for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Both It, and the individual villages in it, all are notable. But just as a suggestion--perhaps the articles for the individual villages could be written as subsections of this one? DGG (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Discussions about the notability of size of tehsils/mandals in India can be found here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Sumibot and User_talk:Peterl#Deletion_Tag.As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Cities and shops, the size doesn't matter. But I agree that each village in a mandal need not have a page. I created those pages before the discussion about the bot took place.--(Sumanth|Talk) 11:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Though of small size in India, its big by international standards. Yes, the article needs considerable improvement. Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 11:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Populated place with population>68,000[2]. The article needs references, but is verifiable[3][4]. utcursch | talk 13:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, article needs improvement, not deletion. Populated establishments are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- It needs reference and more information; not deletion. Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size, for just being there. Information like population and attractions should be included, with citations, of course. --Boricuaeddie 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, inherently notable if real. Punkmorten 00:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Sumibot. Populated places shouldn't have to prove their notability to be on Wikipedia -- having a reliable population count and defined boundaries is enough to justify an article, in my opinion. As an aside, it has roughly 10 times the population of Credit River Township, Minnesota. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just by being a population center is an assertation of notability. --Oakshade 06:27, 28 July 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.