Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raka, Tibet

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The result was Request withdrawn. 2011wp (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator without any non-keep !votes - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raka, Tibet

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

It may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The article in Chinese is being discussed in zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2012/08/03#Raka. 2011wp (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of 01:53 8 Aug (UTC), this article is unsourced, and more critically, lacking of Chinese/Tibetan and administrative divisions more specific than the Tibet AR. A search on Google Earth near the coordinates as stated (29°26′N 85°50′E / 29.433°N 85.833°E / 29.433; 85.833 reveals nothing that could be a reasonable Mandarin transliteration of Raka, say "Laka". GotR ^Talk 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of small thoughts. I couldn't find Gullet quarry, Malvern on Google Earth, despite its geological (and historical) notability. I also feel that Mandarin names shouldn't be a touchstone for the notability of Tibetan places. —Misty_(MORN) 11:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For locations below the county-level, Google Maps/Earth almost always only provides the transliteration from Mandarin, so the Mandarin translit definitely factors into the notability. GotR ^Talk 14:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per Wikipedia's remit as a gazetteer, populated places that can be verified through reliable sources are always notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There should be a rule against nominating verifiable populated settlements for deletion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It's certainly not unsourced now. —Misty_(MORN) 10:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Verified places of population are always notable. Ryan Vesey 13:29, 8 August 2012 (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.