Deletion of Qamdün

Comment: Well if this was a "test case" nom it seems to be a decisive result in favour of our existing policies such as  which unambiguously states "Populated, legally recognised places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low" and our most "fundamental principles" which are set out at . One of our pillars is that we are a gazetteer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND||WP:PILLARS)

Comment: article satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: I think an argument can be made to cull a significant number of Tibetan village articles that say nothing more than "'''So-and-so''' is a village in Tibet".  I make a distinction, however, for Townships of China|township-level villages (such as this) that are a distinct administrative level of the Chinese settlement hierarchy and clearly meet  guidelines.  I'm going to work on beefing up many of the township-level and county-level settlement articles for Greater Tibet in the upcoming months, and I'll make sure to include this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: Passes . If someone wants to change that policy, bring it up at the village pump, not here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: given the sources that the IP has generously provided, it seems that this subject satisfies the #Availability of sources may cause bias|intentionally low bar set by . The nominator has linked  but for the life of me I don't see how it applies and would appreciate some specific text to be cited. "Directory entry" is not interchangeable with "an article that is currently very short"; the crux would be whether the subject was ''incapable'' of further encyclopedic expansion. Anyone who watches the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography|list of Geography-related deletion discussions sees these sorts of articles nominated regularly; almost always it's a non-English location with a short or poorly formatted article. The nomination usually boils down to "I've never heard of it", and if you're lucky they'll present their hasty, fruitless Google search (in English, of course) as evidence of "non-notability". The articles are usually kept or merged, rarely deleted, because even though |AFD is not cleanup, it's typically not hard for someone with the necessary language skills and geographic knowledge to demonstrate the subject's suitability for inclusion (thanks, 84.73.134.206!). "There are ''hundreds of thousands'' of these" for a reason, and that reason is found within : A stated aim of Wikipedia is to function at least partially as a gazeteer, and having extant stubs allows for ease of expansion by non-power users who may |eventually find the article and improve it. Instead of using this as a "test case" (to do what, exactly? Set precedent for deleting short geographic articles while bypassing ?), I agree with Trotavore that the nominator would be better served by initializing a larger discussion at the Village Pump, , or maybe even  itself if this sort of article is seen as truly problematic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS||WP:GEOLAND||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:5PILLARS||WP:DEADLINE||WP:BEFORE||WP:NGEO)