Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukkuva kerala


 * 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   redirect to Mukkuvar. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Mukkuva kerala

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An incomprehensible block of text full of peacockery, POV and little explanation as to what this is even about. There are far too many Subcontinent articles like this. There was a prod tag put on this back in November, but the creator of the article removed it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP 30 DAYS PENDING  In my opinion, the article about this notable geographic and historic area is pretty crude and should be deleted unless a lot of improvement is made in the next 30 days.  Here are some suggestions.  (A) Turn article into a geography stub that points back to Kerala article, which in turn should point back to India article;  (B) Purge non-neutral superior/inferior language (see WP:POV), and where absolutely necessary, use neutral language to report that others think in terms of superior/inferior; (C) Add wikilinks for terms readers in US and Britain are unlikely to know, and it iss ok if they are red provided you later create those articles too; (D) Add  verifiable sources for all factual assertions;  (E) Add maps and pic or two;  (F) Delete after 30 days without significant improvement.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's not really a good way to keep for a given period of time; inevitably, we'll forget and then there'll be another AFD/MFD that reads "Holy crap we gave this guy 30 days 6 months ago. Kill it with fire." Better, I think, to userfy it and guide the author. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, then it could be "Keep pending specified improvements" and asking renoms to wait for a minimum of 30 days, and if it turns out to be longer than that the ultimate time period should be treated as irrelevant.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The time period could be indefinite, if progress is being made. If it sits for a while, someone could shuffle it off to MFD. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy. None of the problems cited by the nominator are insurmountable, and could be remedied with simple editing over time. The author does not appear to be a speaker of native English, which complicates matters. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject appears notable (a notable ethnic/social group), though the text itself is a mess it looks like there should be an article about this subject at Wikipedia. Given that, I see no reason to delete it; since what it needs is a good cleanup by someone both knowledgable and with a good command of scholarly English.  That's also why I oppose userfication, and think it would do much better in the main space.  If we userfy it, it will just fester in the userspace of the person who created it, and stands no chance to get any outside attention from anyone that could actually help it.  Articles that need cleanup should remain in the mainspace where people can find it and fix it.  That's how Wikipedia works, when multiple people with different skills all end up contributing to make something better.  Userfying this means it will never get improved by anyone else.  Either fix it up now, or leave it for someone else with the proper knowledge and skills can fix it later.  There's no rush for a perfect article now (and this one is FAR from perfect.)  -- Jayron  32  17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said in the nomination, there is an inherent problem with practically all of these ethnic articles in that they stay in this unsourced, unreadable state and nothing ever gets accomplished. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect--I'm not an expert in this field at all, but this content seems to be about the same topic as the (notably better) article at Mukkuvar. If it is, this could be redirected there perhaps. Meelar (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Animaajit (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Since I was new to Wiki, the best thing could have been to tell me what should have been done. I made a lot of effort in coming up with the data; however, if you feel this is a tasteless peacockery, please go ahead. The first time it was put up for deletion, the user was good enough to tell me that citations were required. The same had been done, and hence the tag " put up for deletion" was removed as per Wiki's standards. If you do not understand the heritage and the customs of the people here, it would be natural for you to feel that this is all useless. The prior text was placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mukkuva kerala. I've taken the liberty of moving it here to the main discussion page.Meelar (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The nomination has absolutely zero to do with the subject, and entirely to do with the presentation. I resent the accusation.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's just the presentation, then AFD is not cleanup. Presentation issues aren't for AFD to deal with.  -- Jayron  32  04:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you reading what I'm saying? This "article" is not ready for publication.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am reading what you are saying. Wikipedia would not exist if we waited for some arbitrary definition of "ready for publication".  Please read Editing_policy.  -- Jayron  32  05:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon further review, it might just be best to redirect this to Mukkuvar. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mukkuvar of which it appears to be a poorly written duplicate.  Sandstein   06:23, 18 February 2012 (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.