Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikkajala

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. There is consensus that the subject meets WP:GEOLAND. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chikkajala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unsourced since 2006. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Would this few-line stub not be better served in a larger article? Coin945 (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: any reliably-sourced detail could be made into a paragraph in Bangalore or History of Bangalore. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This places seems to be a whole village of 6000: [1], [2]. Meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated place. Article should be expanded to cover the whole village. MB 21:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I agree with user MB. Chikkajala is a populated & legally recognized village, so it meets WP:GEOLAND. I've added a couple of reliable sources. The Afded version can also be sourced from articles like this one. There seems to be healthy coverage of it in reliable sources. There also seem to be few historically important sites there. So it can be further expanded & should be kept. BTW, there are zillions of villages/towns in every Indian district, and it's not possible to even list their names in their respective district articles, let alone merging them. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Personally I would like to see villages about which we have nothing beyond a name, location, and census data rolled up into regional lists, but the uniform precedent has been to give them separate articles. Usually deletion requires casting sufficient doubt that the place exists at all, and that's clearly not what we have here. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Passes WP:GEOLAND as a legally-recognized village ([3]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:GEOLAND, the reference sources and content still can expand it. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, i reckon this afd will be like england at the moment, lots of white stuff, just a reminder Coin945, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and "Article content does not determine notability", thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as a recognized populated place, the subject passes WP:GEOLAND. Pratyush (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2017 (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.