Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellikunnu Muhyaddin Juma Masjid


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Nellikunnu Muhyaddin Juma Masjid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of the sources is an official website for an affiliate body of this organization, and the other is the personal blog of one of the many accounts used to promote this organization and its affiliates. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ADVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator per the discussion below. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom. I tagged this for notability some time ago; I would have PROD'd it if it were an English language topic. I'd ask the closer to wait as long as possible in case a someone with the language skills can find sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - oh come on, if this was a church in Iowa we'd keep it. The issue is WP:NOTHERE article creators who leave locally notable articles without sourcing. Let's try a few more direct appeals (talk not templates) to the article creator. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I invite you to read Other stuff exists which explains why this is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. You're welcome to nominate some churches in Iowa articles for me to take a close look at. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By which I mean the problem as you yourself have pointed out is language. Iowa sources will be in English not Malayalam. It doesn't help that the Malayalam speaking editors on en.wp are mainly St Thomas Christians so unlikely to be able to help either. I've left messages at ml.wp Embassy. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Query - the creator seems inactive now. It has apparently been tagged for notability before; despite by own noob-ness in this subject, would you suggest retracting the nomination or waiting for someone with skills in south Indian languages can comment? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the time-being honestly, withdraw it. Tagging for notability is a big step lower than AfD. However in fairness I consider AfD much less disruptive than what another editor called "drive-by-PROD-tagging" PROD tagging never even gets the chance of AfD, so no damage done. I have left a "please help source" at WP Kerala. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Although the nomination has now been withdrawn, this deletion discussion cannot be closed as there is an outstanding delete !vote. I have left a message on that user's talk page asking him to reconsider his !vote, but he is completely free to stand behind his !vote, in which case this discussion will remain open. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Nellikunnu unless more in the way of sourcing can be found, however, I'd prefer this be left open longer (at the very least through the 20th that this relist would normally provide) in the hope that In ictu oculi's attempt to get assistance will pay off. I'm not willing to ignore notability standards (or for much of the article, WP:V) indefinitely, either, and the article as it stands has a non-encyclopedic promotional tone ("huge", "famous", famous"; and that's just one sentence) that's difficult to correct due to lack of sourcing. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:47, 18 March 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.