Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elur Chetty Padmanabhapuram


 * 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   merge to Elur Chetty.  Sandstein  05:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Elur Chetty Padmanabhapuram

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content fork of Padmanabhapuram, but perhaps sufficiently different to not be eligible for speedy deletion under A10 —teb728 t c 10:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)




 * Strong delete The fact that it was brought here due to an edit war on the article to keep/remove the csd tag is sad. The author also blanked the article at one point. In any sense, it's poorly written with several grammatical mistakes, and from what I'm able to comprehend it's about an ancient community? Doesn't imply any actual importance or notability.  D u s t i *poke* 00:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Questions The content dispute seems to have been  about whether  Malayalam is also an official language.  At present, it is not clear to be whether the article under discussion here is supposed to be a neighborhood of the city.  The place to clarify this is not AfD.  The difference between the articles at present seems to be that the one nominated for deletion has pictures of the temples,  the names of the "Association presidents", whom I take to be either the local official of the city or the head of a neighborhood association, and an expanded version of the history--which may be disputed. Neither version has   sources for more than the geographic location and the population. If this is a neighborhood, not corresponding to a governmental unit, there needs to be evidence that it is a distinct neighborhood commonly referred to as such with a distinct identity--we do not automatically keep neighborhoods. If it was previously an ancient city, named as shown here, that has now been rebuilt under a different name, it would probably justify a separate article--if sources can be found. Alternatively, the sourcable information should be properly merged into the main article.   DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  16:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. Topically, it actually seems that Elur Chetty might be a better fit, but that article is in pretty rough shape. A merge into Padmanabhapuram also would be fine. The bottom line is this material is better managed in a more central location, I see no justification (such as independent notability or unwieldy size) requiring a split. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per Xymmax, WP:CHEAP, and WP:TNT. The current article is such a hot mess, and of such doubtful notability, that a merger to one place or the other is a reasonable idea. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Elur Chetty (preferably) or Padmanabhapuram; this article's subject does not meet WP:GNG.  Mini  apolis  13:23, 17 July 2013 (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.