Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkhotampur

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) TheChronium 07:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parkhotampur[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)

A small village with no notability. The only source used is a census report from 2011. This certainly fails GNG. Created by a user who is just creating articles for the hell of it and is not improving any of them. He is currently a subject of an ongoing ANI discussion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't fit the guidlines. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. The guideline says that populated, legally recognised places are presumed notable. The census link says that this is a populated (by over 2000 people) legally recognised place. How does it not fit? I must add that I have never seen anyone with a user name that implies that they are here on a mission last for long. If you want to fly under the radar a bit more then I advise you to change it, but then I have also never seen editors with such user names take such good advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fit because there is only one census report. A single source isn't enough. It would be notable if not only with multiple census reports, but news articles or something that can establish notability. This village so far isn't under the guideline. And there's no need to invoke any comment about my user name. Stick to the topic at hand. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per User:Phil Bridger and WP:GEOLAND. One census report IS enough for populated places, although obvsly more sources would be better. Ingratis (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per GEOLAND. People live here.--Hippeus (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement, so passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2021 (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.