Deletion of Rompivalasa

Comment: as a |recognised populated place. If we can verify its mere existence (as has now been done for this village) such articles are normally allowed to remain. "Original research" is unfortunately rife among articles of this type. I think it is tolerated because we would otherwise lose much basic information about a place, and because much of it could (in principle) be verified by visiting the place and seeing for oneself. I would only remove trivia, advertising, non-notable residents and the like
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: It seems that Wikipedia has decided that all |recognised populated places are to be kept, and that will eventually mean millions of villages in India, China and Brazil will have articles of their own, adding at least five million articles, perhaps more
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: per  as a verifiable and recognized populated place. Original research is a problem, but the article can be reduced to a stub if necessary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: per  as a verifiable and recognized populated place
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: per . I've further edited the article to remove OR, extra-ordinary claims and copyvio
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: real place per  and accord one of the  being a gazetteer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND||WP:FIVEPILLARS)