Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhongshan District, Taipei

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. I'm closing this early as an article to be retained. Verified geographic regions are typically retained on English Wikipedia (see WP:MAPOUTCOMES). Also, this administrative district of Taipei City clearly passes point 1 of WP:GEOLAND. Last, but not least, is that the consensus in this discussion is for the article to exist. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zhongshan District, Taipei

Zhongshan District, Taipei (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)

It only contains three sources and lacks proper information. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 23:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is the consensus to keep articles about legitimate inhabited geographic places, hamlets, or cities, even if they are just a dot on some map, no longer inhabited and only contained a few inhabitants. This district is inhabited by over 200,000. The nomination does not seem to be grounded in policy. Edison (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:OUTCOMES. A real place inhabited by real people. Stalwart111 06:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've cleaned it up and added a couple of references just to put it beyond doubt. Cheers, Stalwart111 07:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a place that exists and has people in it. Though I might be biased as (I think) I have family living there Ansh666 11:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom as it contained three sourced when nominated and per all the others above that it's a verified population center, specifically in this case a District. --Oakshade (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a legitimate inhabited place. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:17, 29 April 2013 (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.