Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garakunta palem

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garakunta palem

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, prod removed. Still unsourced, no assertion of notability, and there are no sources that make it meet GNG~~, and existence is not notability.~~ as maps alone are specifically excluded as sources that assert verifiability and not notability. MSJapan (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is completely wrong. Existence is notability when it comes to named populated places, per WP:GEOLAND. ~~Keep~~ until such time as this nomination is adapted in a way that conforms to policy for villages, towns, cities, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better. Well, it may be a foreign language issue, but I can't find anything authoritative to WP:Verify that this place exists. If anyone can, please chime in. I'll keep a watch on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan, have you made any attempt to verify whether this place exists? It is unfair to reject my work on this without doing any of your own. ~Kvng (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tending towards keep: Kvng has provided a GMaps link on the article's talk page that shows this place at roughly 16°55′26″N 79°24′07″E / 16.924°N 79.402°E / 16.924; 79.402. While I have known inaccurate placename information to get into GMaps, satellite photographs certainly show a place with perhaps a hundred houses at these coordinates. While other Google searches seem fail on the name exactly as given in the article title, English transcriptions of such names usually give them as one word - and (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) does give some sources, though none whose reliability I am quite sure enough about to give a definite keep !vote. This may be because of further spelling variants or names (in which case this should be kept, using the most common one) - or just because the place is fairly small (in which case, we might want to keep this, or prefer to mention it in an article on its immediate area). PWilkinson (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a census village, it could be a sub-village (for census purposes a small section of 20-50 houses that are contiguous to another area are clubbed together). See Pages 434 to 439 which lists all villages in Nidamanur mandal. —SpacemanSpiff 12:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While we don't know if it's a "census village", it is a distinct stand-alone population center. [1]. --Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. We know that it is not a census village.—SpacemanSpiff 15:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. WP:V issues appear to have been addressed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does pass WP:GEOLAND. This article will likely forever be short, but that's not a reason to delete. Sources in English are hard to find. If someone speaks Telugu, perhaps we can find some more definitive sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.