Talk:Kanagala

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 September 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

India: Andhra Pradesh / Geography Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Andhra Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Article for Deletion

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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanagala

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

Least Important and it is a village not known to anybody . No information available and not fit to be a article KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information beyond the census listing. Could be kept if some significant local sources are found. LaMona (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately delete as there are actually quite a few of these and they're still being started but there's simply no good sorucing even minimally to suggest improvement. Geographic places usually pass with WP:NGEO but there's not much here. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable..." This village has a population of 7,192, which is documented and legally recognized by the government of India, as per the official Census of India. Also keep as per WP:FIVEPILLARS, because Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 22:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have to keep this stub as per existing guidelines provided above. --Bhadani (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all villages are notable per WP:GEOLAND, and there is no reason to delete - the government of India knows of this village and its 7000 people disproving the nominator's statement to the contrary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should have been a speedy keep as soon as NA1000 posted his link to an Indian government website demonstrating that this is a recognized village for national census purposes. Being held over once was unnecessary, twice was flat out bizarre. Click the link and we are done per WP:GEOLAND. Bad nomination and lame debate facilitation... Carrite (talk) 15:43, 4 October 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kanagala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160705114613/http://saaksharbharat.nic.in/saaksharbharat/forms/gp_code.pdf to http://saaksharbharat.nic.in/saaksharbharat/forms/gp_code.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]