Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokku kooli


 * 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   speedy keep: nom. withdrawn, no other delete !votes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nokku kooli

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The 'subject' as well as the title of the article is a phrase from the Malayalam language. The 'subject' is of only limited local relevance to the state of Kerala in India. The article has absolutely no relevance in English Wikipedia. Even people from Kerala, where this subject has a relevance, wont look in English wikipedia for this title, because it is not expected here. The fact that this page, now 6 months old, is still an orphan, and is yet not edited by none other than the creator (excluding 3 technical edits, plus a prod from myself, and a prod decline - all (except the prod) from out of Kerala) proves this.

Now, please dont read me wrong. The fact that Nokku kooli is a social evil that exists in Kerala is a truth. And it has to be fought against. But Wikipedia is not a blog or bulletin board. The point is: Even people from Kerala wont look for this word in the English wikipedia, because it is not expected here. And you have the evidence above. Austria156 (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't use words such as "prove" and "evidence" when you have proven nothing and provided no evidence of anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The subject of the article is not a phrase, but a labour practice, which is known in English by this name, as confirmed by the reliable sources cited in the article. Nothing in the nominator's statement comes anywhere close to being a valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had access to the visitor statistics, I could have proved my point. Unfortunately I dont have. But the edit history tells us something. What is an article in Wikipedia for? To provide information to someone, isn't it? If nobody will look in English Wikipedia for this phrase, then why should it be here? And this argument of mine will be proven in the next 7 days of discussion. I am interested to see how many Keralites would participate (There are 1000s of wikipedians from Kerala, I believe). But now, if you are going to tell me that, even if the article be never visited for its life, by no one, even then, the article could and should stay. Then I'll call the AfD back myself. Thank you. Austria156 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the visitor statistics for 'Nokku kooli'. Salih  ( talk ) 18:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Guesses about whether people might visit an article form no part of our deletion policy. I, for one, even though I am not from Kerala, find the article interesting and have learnt something from it. Why should people from Kerala be the only ones to have access to information about Kerala? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Wikipedia also reports on social evils, as long as it are notable social evils. This topic is apparently notable enough for the English language The Hindu to report on it, and for politicians and government to publicly address the problem. It is not our job to predict how many people will visit this page or why. WP simply reports on everything as long as it is properly sourced, and that seems to be the case here. Of course the article can be improved, but that is the case with most articles on WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC);
 * Keep - from the sources listed in the article, this appears to meet our WP:GNG. Thousands of page views per day are not required. Lady  of  Shalott  19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments above. This is a general encyclopedia written in English, not an encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep well-written article, properly supported by reliable independent citations, including The Hindu newspaper. No problem with Notability at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Phil Bridger and others, above. The case for notability is clear, the article is sourced (and, moreover, the subject is sourceable) and, honestly, the prose is quite well written. The lack of a valid deletion rationale helps as well. Notability is not impacted by the level of traffic to the article, nor by the language or place of origin of the subject. See also Systemic bias. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 00:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Use of the term in English is established by sources.  The practice described is established by sources (though references could improve).  I learned something from reading it.  What's more to say? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawal of nomination. This is from the nominator of this AfD. I'm sorry to have wasted the time of the participants. I withdraw the nomination. Please do understand that it was with a good intention, maybe I was wrong in my judgement. Sorry for that. Sorry all for your time and effort. Thank you for your participation. I dont know what to do for a Withdrawal of nomination. If something else has to be done otherthan posting this here, some of the fellow editors here could help me. Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. No harm done, the article is better than it was when it started. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:47, 9 December 2011 (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.