Deletion of Anakhanda

Comment: in that it's verified.  Minor point, but, technically, we have no policy of inherent notability on populated places or on high schools or on a lot of other things, but |common outcomes (of which  is one) is the ''de facto'' rule, the product of the debates of AfD, and I'm all in favor of those.  I should have quoted the language, which applies here "Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source".  Catalyst has taken care of the verification problem, hence it passes.  As the language shows, populated places presupposes something that would qualify as its own village, incorporated or unincorporated, rather than a neighborhood within a city
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:OUTCOMES||WP:NPLACE)

Comment: Dear All,In India there have 638,365 nos of village.http://censusindia.gov.in/Data_Products/Library/Post_Enumeration_link/No_of_Villages_link/no_villages.html. You are all mean to said that I can create 638,365 nos of village? I see that at  ''Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a wikipedia:R|reliable source
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPLACE)

Comment: Actually I don't understand how  | Notability policy and  "All villages are notable" statement are balanced
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)