Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunnathukal


 * 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, Edison has provided sources to verify existence and strong precedent is to keep articles on verifiable villages. Davewild (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Kunnathukal

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Hardly notable village. "Its very famous place with Funny stories" it is not enough to pass WP:N, I'm afraid. M0RD00R (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is poorly written, but real villages are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly so. According to WP:NGL "A human settlement such as a city, town or village is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." It is not the case here so far.M0RD00R (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a verifiable village, per a Kerala government website and a census of India , . I have removed some unreferenced gibberish and left a stub, which is still very poorly written. Other refs exist, but many are not available on the web rom reliable sources. Book refs include . All such verifiable villages have been kept in AFDs, to the best of my recollection. The new proposed guideline WP:NGL would modify that by setting a higher bar, and would require the deletion of many thousands of articles about verifiable but small villages and hamlets. The proposed guideline has no authority, and is likely to wind up labelled "essay" or "rejected guideline" like many other fine efforts such as  WP:CONG, WP:MALL, and WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to containing municipality (Neyyattinkara). Subdivisions of municipalities need an additional layer of secondary sourcing to merit a stand-alone article. Split them off only if there is sufficient information that would cause the municipality article to become too long or too unfocused. --Polaron | Talk 18:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. All villages are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2008 (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.