Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vappuzha

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. Per WP:GEOLAND.In India, a ward is an officially categorized habited place. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vappuzha

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

Infobox says it is a village, but that is not cohesive with the body of the article. The link provided is dead, and searches provided zero hits. As currently stands, fails WP:GEOLAND, and definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence of existence let alone notability Spiderone 09:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this village's existence can be easily verified (e.g., this page from a Government of Kerala website summarizing the 2015 local election results, or these pages on the elected ward members). Thus, this article passes WP:GEOLAND. — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Stringy Acid - those citations show that it is a ward of Chazhoor, not a village. Therefore it is merely a section of a place which passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a ward of a panchayat. There's no official "village" categorization in India, which follows the system state -> district -> panchayat -> ward -> unofficial categorizations. Thus, either the panchayat or ward could be unofficially called a village. However, it's still a place with an officially recognized name, with a population of over 1000, and two elected members representing it at the panchayat level. Thus, I don't see why it fails to pass WP:GEOLAND. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND which states "Populated, legally recognised places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low" AusLondonder (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2017 (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.