Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddalam of Palakkad

: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 redirect to Madhalam. And merge as appropriate from history.  Sandstein  09:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

=[[Maddalam of Palakkad]]=

:{{la|Maddalam of Palakkad}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maddalam_of_Palakkad Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Maddalam of Palakkad}})

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference merely asserts that this product has been registered with the government of India. This does not necessarily constitute notability, but the article does not even assert that the subject is notable for any other reason. ubiquity (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

:*{{ping|DatGuy}} how? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Rhododendrites}} Wikipedia is not a collection of things. If it would be, then we will have four hundred articles about different drums. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

::::{{ping|DatGuy}} Ok, but the problem is that "thing" doesn't actually mean anything. There are plenty of ways to argue that Wikipedia is a collection of "things" (articles, topics, concepts, entries) and certainly has lots and lots of articles about things as in objects -- including many, many articles about different drums. Typically when someone points to WP:NOT in an AfD it's because there's a problem with the article other than notability -- i.e. it's a image gallery, it's a dictionary entry, it's an indiscriminate list, it's a how-to guide, it's about predictions rather than what has already been written about, etc. It sounds like what you meant was that it's not notable, though. Not trying to give you a hard time, here, but you should know that just saying "fails WP:WHATNOT" without context means whoever closes this discussion can't really give your opinion any weight (it's not a vote, after all). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Do not delete - Expanded the article by adding additional references indicative of the notability of the topic. The original article was started as a stub. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

:* As I am an organizer, I won't vote here, but let me write the same thing what I wrote on article talk page: please read [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Palakkad-Maddalam-seeks-logo-under-GI-Act/articleshow/47464202.cms this], not only the GI thing, please note the other thing written about the instrument. You may explore more [https://4d1fac7452666a9f1a1e7b6fa5af791fa725173b.googledrive.com/host/0B3ke7sJYbO1gVkRjUVh6bmtqeVU/IndianEnglishNewspaperSearch.html#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Maddalam%20of%20Palakkad&gsc.sort= here]. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Perhaps I'm missing something, but why is this not an obvious candidate to Merge into Maddalam? I understand there are distinctions, but aren't we talking about a particular subset of the topic that is Maddalam? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

:*I could see it being a section in the Maddalam article. I think Merging this article into Maddalam is a better option than deleting it outright. ThePortaller (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

MERGE-After reading both the articles , what i found is that the so called subset article has more info on Maddalam than the original article about that topic.My argument here is that the original article on maddalam is deficient on many aspects , hence merging this article with maddalam article would be good.Apart from that there is a portion on peruvambu village , the article on peruvambu village is too a single line entry hence the article on peruvambu can also be enhanced with this article topics, so i propose a merger of the peruvambu section of this article with peruvambu village article Surajme23 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Madhalam and I would've also said delete because how serious the current article looks. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.