Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toolihalan

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. Sandstein 13:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toolihalan[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)

"Toolihalan" gets a passing reference in various sources, including "Toolihalan Road", but no press and no reference to "Toolihalan Village." It fails WP:GNG in English. If someone can find a reliable press reference in another language, fine. Otherwise it has to go. Rhadow (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see WP:GEOLAND - “Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.“ We don’t require the same standard of multiple reliable sources for small places as we do for, e.g. actors or companies. If you’re concerned about specific content that isn’t sufficiently well-sourced you’ve tagged them as requiring further citations so we can wait to see if those appear. But there’s no case at all for deleting the entire article.Mccapra (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons given above. Alarichall (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could not agree with WP:GEOLAND more. Look through the references through. There is no indication this is a legally recognized place. After that, it fails WP:GNG. DESiegel might want to weigh in.Rhadow (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep listed as a town on the district marriage list. One of the weakest WP:V votes I've ever cast, but I'm convinced. Some searches for "Toolihallan" also appear. SportingFlyer T·C 04:36, 21 March 2019 (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.