Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauki, Ambegaon

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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauki, Ambegaon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The village has not only not received any significant coverage in reliable sources, it has not received any coverage. India has millions of villages and this one appears to be just one of those millions -- not notable in itself. Google News or Books show no results. As Wikipedia is not a directory and no coverage can be found (let alone significant coverage), the village does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements. IndianVillager (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While populated places are often kept regardless of size, single notability guidelines like that do not trump the GNG; furthermore, per my recollection there have been places in the United States whose existences have been verified only by an indiscriminate Census database that have been deleted, and this appears to be an analogous situation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of GNIS. That's not a Census database. It's a database including every place name that has ever appeared on any US topo map. Its "populated place" category contains numerous individual farms, bridges, railroad sidings, etc, that are not communities and often have no permanent population at all, making them locales instead of communities. Many articles were created a while back that indiscriminately label GNIS listings as "communities", and some of us have been going through those articles and nominating the non-communities for deletion. This is a different case, in that it's actually a community. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am, thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND as a government-recognized populated place. Our inclusion criteria for populated places are deliberately very low. Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and as a populated place that verifiably exists [1] [2] it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 18:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND. GSS ^💬 18:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised place. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2020 (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.