Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dappaankuthu


 * 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 no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dappankuthu

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

OR all the way. Has been tagged for OR since Aug '06. And content is totally unencyclopedic. Sarvagnya 09:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not OR anymore. RaveenS 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.  Sarvagnya 09:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --ZayZayEM 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Nom says OR but that is no longer valid its current state is supported by 3 RS sources and notability is established by ober 1000 google hits. Thanks RaveenS 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote changed Dappan koothu is an acceptable stub in need of expansion.--ZayZayEM 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of Notability and little/no refs. NBeale 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:evidence if notability over 1000 google hits under various spellings and also currently the stub has has 3 RS sources. Thanks RaveenS 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment : Regarding Notability Google search for டப்பாங்குத்து yields considerable number of results (considering the fact that very few percentage of Tamil Pages are in Unicode   Doctor Bruno    08:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a form of dance (like Bharatanatyam Kathak Kathakali Kuchipudi Manipuri Mohiniaattam Odissi Sattriya This is a well known form of dance in Tamil Nadu and is certainly notable. The only problem here is that this kind of dance is being performed as well as patroned by the masses. Most of the Wikipedians belong to the elite class of Tamil Nadu, and hence may not have heard about this. As per the Guidelines, Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.    Doctor Bruno    08:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See Mohiniaattam That is a form of dance like the subject of this article. That article does not have any references. But that has not been listed as OR or called unencyclopedic. The reason is because Wikipedian editors know about that dance and hence do not ask for a reference. But this form of dance is being practicised by the Illiterate masses. Hence this immediately becomes "unencyclopedic". When references are cited, it will become "non-notable" while Mohiniattam will continue to be both encyclopedic as well as notable..... This is what is called as Systemic Bias My comments are just to highlight the fact that we have not still eliminated the Systemic Bias from Wikipedia, and even though this is considered to be an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia is turning out to be the domain of "few selected people". And this trend is not good for the project and will be detrimental to the Wikipedia in long run    Doctor Bruno    08:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonsense!! My nom doesnt talk about notability at all, though I have to admit that notability is also an issue.  Further, the Mohiniattam doesnt have  BS like

while not comfortable with rhythm yet take one step in sync with beat if front foot is left foot point left fist to the sky point right fist to the front tilt head slightly above horizontal else // front foot is right foot point left fist to the front point right fist to the sky tilt head straight down endif bob torso vertically once by flexing knees, in sync with beat end while while not (tired or bored) dance end while


 * in the article. Instead of ranting away based on imagined biases, I'd appreciate it if you could improve the article(Dappankuthu or whatever) and save it from deletion.  Sarvagnya 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - The article, in it's current stage, is just ridiculous. Non-notable subject without any valid references, and full of original research. Certainly unencyclopedic. - KNM Talk 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The current state is revised to a stub with 3 RS sources with over 1000 google hits. Please take a look. Thanks RaveenS 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Clean up is no reason for deletion. Closing admin, even if this is deleted please assure so that this article can be recreated because it is a notable dance form although not elitist hence internet based research papers are not many but commited anthropologists have studiesd it. Need to find proper RS citationsRaveenS 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as redirect to Dappan koothu. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentLahiru, my dear friend look at the nom ? it says it is WP:OR, it is not OR there are over 1000 hits for this title or some version of this title. Even the nominator has change it to WP:V now in his arguments. Can you substantiate your vote that this is a original research ? RaveenS 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Writing an article in Wikipedia requires that notability be established for the subject using reliable and verifiable sources. Claiming that the sources establish notability when they dont, is in a way, OR. Sarvagnya 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with you there there is no relaible source that deals with this subject matter at this point listed in this stubRaveenS 16:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable. Current title has just 26 unique Google hits, more than half of which are blogs / forums. WP:N requires the topic to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from reliable / independent sources. All I see here is glancing mentions in three separate articles, one time per article. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Very good point but besides that how did you find this article? It is not Sri Lanka related article so is it a case of following my edits WP:Stalk. If I am mistaken please accept my apologiesRaveenS 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm lost as to how I or anyone else found this as anything to do with the AFD. In any case, if you suspect you are been stalked, at Wikipedia we have various policies to help you with that. I suggest you file a report at WP:AN/I immediately, to prevent possible stalking escalating further. --snowolfD4( talk / @</b> ) 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. When I created this article back in 2005, there weren't many references online for this cultural practice. Now that there are, I hardly think it qualifies as WP:V or WP:OR. I have deleted the Steps section since I myself felt that was more like a how-to than a neutral description. As a former frequent editor of the article, I feel this cultural practice is notable enough to be documented. However, I do see recurring problems with the article in that it tends to become more of a how-to, written for a narrow audience comprised of people who have lived in Chennai at some point. I'll keep it more neutral when I edit. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * immediate Delete Per nom, Per Snowolfd4 Iwazaki  会話. 討論 02:28, 22 March 2007 (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.