Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cholamandal Artists' Village


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cholamandal Artists' Village

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ad-like. Sources are only tangential. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – AllyD (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep "Ad-like" is a reason for deletion only if an article lacks relevant content; this article looks far from being in that situation. I'm struggling with the idea that the sources are "only tangential". There is an India Today reference where this association is first on a list of "10 biggest art moments"; there is a New York Times article discussing the group. Then under Further Reading there is a 400 page book on the association published by Oxford University Press. These are already in the article, so this isn't even a WP:BEFORE situation? AllyD (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – per reliable sources listed directly above this message. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject of a book published by Oxford University Press in 2004 called Cholamandal: An Artists' Village, is profiled in another book, an artist biography, Husain: Riding The Lightning, and in Art and visual culture in India, 1857-2007. Extensive coverage in publications such as The Hindu, (dozens of articles there), the Toronto Star, and India Today.  The coverage in the New York Times is far beyond tangential.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  23:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep (bordering Speedy Keep) Subject has been covered by numerous secondary sources. The book by OUP and the article in NY Times is good enough to indicate that the subject has received international attention. Numerous mentions in reputable Indian newspapers like The Hindu. But the article is written very poorly and needs a lot of cleanup. &mdash;  Fιnεmαnn  (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But of course we agree, as do probably 99% of active editors here, that poor writing in itself is not a valid reason to delete an article about a clearly notable topic.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable as above. SL93 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The basis of the nomination for deletion, that the article is "Ad-like. Sources are only tangential.", with tangential meaning, per Merriam Webster dictionary's definition for 'Tangential': "touching lightly : incidental, peripheral ; also : of little relevance ," indicates that the nominator didn't follow the proper guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE, and based the nomination for deletion upon opinion rather than checking for reliable sources before nominating the article, per stated WP:BEFORE guidelines. In this case, the nominator is basing deletion criterion upon the sources in the article, and not upon a search for sources as is required in WP:BEFORE. Therefore, the basis of the nomination is nullified, because the nominator failed to follow Wikipedia guidelines for nominating articles for deletion in AfD. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not even in that ballpark of sourcing's a bit difficult and only tangential sources exist etc, a minute on Google is sufficient to check notability. And per all the above. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:02, 8 September 2011 (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.