Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rompivalasa

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rompivalasa

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

Page is very problematic with a lot of original research. Deletion may not be the best option, perhaps only the first line should be kept and everything else is deleted. Also, the IPs and other contributors all seem to be the same person who is abusively using multiple accounts and IPs. Further evidence is shown that they all seem to use inaccurate edit summaries claiming that their edits are fixes of typos. Arfæst Ealdwrítere – talk! 18:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a recognised populated place. If we can verify its mere existence (as has now been done for this village) such articles are normally allowed to remain. "Original research" is unfortunately rife among articles of this type. I think it is tolerated because we would otherwise lose much basic information about a place, and because much of it could (in principle) be verified by visiting the place and seeing for oneself. I would only remove trivia, advertising, non-notable residents and the like: Noyster (talk), 10:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that Wikipedia has decided that all recognised populated places are to be kept, and that will eventually mean millions of villages in India, China and Brazil will have articles of their own, adding at least five million articles, perhaps more.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep real place per WP:GEOLAND and accord one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS being a gazetteer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND as a verifiable and recognized populated place. Original research is a problem, but the article can be reduced to a stub if necessary. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND as a verifiable and recognized populated place.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep -per WP:GEOLAND. I've further edited the article to remove OR, extra-ordinary claims and copyvio. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Place that can be verified and hence clears WP:GEOLAND. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2015 (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.