- 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Kelambakkam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing here to prove notability. Fails WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- an nn subdivision. Article is too promotinal, almost to a point of being a G11. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--Passes WP:NGEO.Promotion etc. is a matter of clean-up.Easily source-able to Census records!~ Winged BladesGodric 04:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The area is WP:Notable in a geographic sense, and issues like it being too promotional means that it needs to be cleaned, not necessarily deleted. Leo1pard (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2018 (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.