Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thuravoor, Angamaly

: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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

=[[Thuravoor, Angamaly]]=

:{{la|Thuravoor, Angamaly}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Thuravoor, Angamaly}})

I am completing this nomination on behalf of an unregistered editor with IP address 60.240.126.92, who posted this on the article talk page: "I am proposing to delete this article per WP:GNG and WP:OR. WP:SOAP seems to be violated as the article appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for Thuravoor. Prod was removed as "all villages are notable" which is a complete untruth." Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

::While WP:OUTCOMES#Places on its own states that "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source", options 2 and 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) state that "Geographic locations are not offered any special consideration for notability" and "an article must have;

1. a name that is either confirmed by the government of the place or by a reliable secondary source,

2. a cited population estimate or range, such as a census report, and

3. coordinates that can be confirmed to point unambiguously to the place."

respectively. --60.240.126.92 (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) is just one person's proposal which has not been accepted as a guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep, agree with Phil Bridger. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep "all villages are notable" is a complete truth on wikipedia, unless its a hoax.--Milowent (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 16:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable village, fits in with the gazetteer function of our five pillars and per long standing practice and consensus. -SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Taking the unpopular opinion here, but notability is not inherited and having an article on every single sourced place turns wikipedia into a directory. Fails WP:NOT and WP:N until we have discussion not verification of the village in reliable, third-party sources. I realise my view is against current consensus but hopefully that will change in the future. ThemFromSpace 18:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment. Nobody is suggesting that the notability of this village is based on some other topic's notability, so what relevance does the statement that "notability is not inherited" have to this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

::*When one says "all places are notable" than one is asserting inherited notability. I'm against blanket notability assertions and believe each topic has to prove itself notable by our GNG. Without that proof we shouldn't have an article about the subject. The two most distressing areas where this is done is with populated places and high schools, and like I said above I hope they will be more closely scrutinized in the future. ThemFromSpace 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

:::*This argument fails to follow the general principle of following the spirit, rather than the letter, of guidelines. The concept of notability was introduced to Wikipedia to counteract the writing of articles about subjects such as garage bands and the minutiae of science fiction fandom, not to prevent the creation of articles about subjects that encyclopedias have always covered. How on earth can you say that this would be a better encyclopedia without an article about Thuravoor? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

::::Because just as with other topics, we aren't a datadump of every known fact on the planet, we only seek to document the most significant things from an historical basis. We accomplish this in a simple way, by not writing about material that hasn't been written about before in reliable, third-party sources. Listing all verifiable towns is outside of the scope of an encyclopedia and doesn't do proper justice to the towns and villages that are notable and have made a name for themselves in published sources. Being included in Wikipedia should mean something, no subject should get a free pass into an encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::That statement implies that an entry in Wikipedia exists for the benefit of the article subject, and is some sort of reward. Articles exist for the benefit of our readers. How are our readers better served by the deletion of this article than by its retention? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::See WP:USEFUL, as many subjects beyond our scope would be useful and usefulness isn't a criteria for a subject's inclusion. I think I've made my point clear here; I interpret the notability guidelines more strictly than you and would prefer to see all articles here have a merit for inclusion outside of its use to readers, while you are willing to bend them for certain minor subjects. I'm not sure that we'll be able to find a middle ground, but as I said before I'm aware that consensus is against me for the time being. That being said, I would fully support a type of WikiAtlas where we could merge all the stubs about nonnotable towns. This would preserve Wikipedia's integrity while allowing useful material to be freely accessible. ThemFromSpace 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::::More to the point, The First Pillar of Wikipedia indicates that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." In instances such as this, being an almanac and/or gazetteer would seem to override not being a directory. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep We've established that this village exists now (I added its coordinates), and verifiable villages are considered to be notable as stated above. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

: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.