Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Malayali Keralites


 * 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 Kerala ethnic groups.  MBisanz  talk 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-Malayali Keralites

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

Neologism and vague classification. The title also appears inappropriate and ethnically divisive and POV. If the article survives deletion it needs to be merged with Demographics of Kerala. We could also create separate articles for Tamils in Kerala, Kannadigas in Kerala, etc. However, the vague term "Non-Malayali Keralites" should be removed. The Enforcer Office of the secret service 12:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — The Enforcer Office of the secret service  12:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Probably the article can be renamed to Non-Malayalis in Kerala to avoid neologism. Salih  ( talk ) 16:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do we not have articles like Non-Tamils in Tamil Nadu, Non-Marathis in Maharashtra, etc. I am sorry; I feel it is too vague and not required. It is also very poorly sourced. We, already, have articles for most communities described in the article, like Cochin Sikhs, Palakkad Iyers, Cochin GSB's, Kasaragod Havyakas, Cochin Gujaratis, etc. I don't think this article is necessary.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 17:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  A itias  //  discussion  00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

*Keep, and possibly rename This seems to be a good signposting document that pulls togther a range of info in a number of other articles. It's sourced, and the numbers of people included in the broad subject field certainly makes it notable to my mind. Not having the other articles is no reason to delete this one. If there are sources that would support the other articles, I don't see why they couldn't be created. If neologism is an issue, and I don't know if 'Keralites' is one or not, then rename as per Salih. -- Ged UK  12:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:The section name Major Non-Malayali communities carries peacock terms. Besides, the content of the section seems to be wholly made up of stuff probably copy-pasted from the articles pertaining to the mentioned communities. It does not contain anything unique.


 * Redirect to Kerala ethnic groups This is an improved name I think, and I've no problem with leaving the redirect behind, as I'm not enough of an expert in whether the search term is likely, so I'd rather err on caution. -- Ged UK  14:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This section, and this, have no inline citations and are probably OR, which makes this list, the only useful content in the whole article. And I don't think, we need to retain the whole article for the sake of a list.


 * In case, you feel that having a total of four inline citations makes the article "well-referenced", sorry I don't think so. And 2 of the 4 citations are for the list (which, as we saw earlier, appears to be the only useful content in the article) and the remaining 2 are for the lead.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 17:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Keralites" is not a neologism; but Non-Malayali Keralites sure is. Consider the prospect of having articles for Non-English Englishmen (NEE), Non-French people of France (NFF), Non-Belgian people of Belgium (NBB), etc.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Often, the term "Keralite" is used synonymously with "Malayali", but only because Kerala is almost entirely populated by Malayali people. It might be important to distinguish people who are from the state of Kerala, but not of Malayali background.  Sarwicked (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Malayali language is considered to be native to Kerala and non-Malayali speakers are believed to have migrated from outside over the centuries. Malayalam is the official language of the state and is spoken by almost 98% of the people. Of the total population, only about 2 or 3% have a different language as their mother-tongue. However, I don't understand the necessity of grouping together an Indo-Aryan Sikh settler with a Dravidian Tamil or Kannadiga, of course, they have very little in common apart from from the fact that they are all migrants from outside. Moreover, individual articles for these communities do exist. Besides if you are to consider Malayali as an ethnic designation, then on what basis shall one conclude whether one is a Malayali or not. Malayali-speaking Jews and Nambudhiris are believed to have migrated from outside about 2,000 years back; at the same time, some non-Malayali speaking people like the Kerala Iyers have been residing in the state for around 500 years. Since they've been living there for so many generations, would that not make them Malayali? Besides, the term non-Malayali Keralites must've been very rarely used to refer to outsiders as is evident from this- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a legitimate list-type article, giving an overview with links to main articles on each group. I agree that it should be improved to add sources or remove unsourced material. Redirect. I don't see merging into Demographics of Kerala, which covers many demographic aspects, not just ethnicity. But I would prefer to see the article renamed to Kerala ethnic groups and a short section on the Malayalis added for balance. Then Demographics of Kerala could point to this article as  . I may add some sources for the ethnic group sections. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. As an experiment, I did a first-cut article Kerala ethnic groups to show my preferred structure, borrowing material from this and other articles, and skipping POV content. I would prefer to redirect this one to Kerala ethnic groups Aymatth2 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this one sounds pretty good. We may very well redirect this article to Kerala ethnic groups - The Enforcer Office of the secret service 01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Kerala ethnic groups looks great; while the other ethnic groups have their own pages, this page gives side-by-side overviews of their respective representations in Kerala. While this article might not contribute information about a specific ethnic group that wouldn't be found elsewhere, it is a good page about Kerala.  Sarwicked (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty good idea. Redirect Non-Malayali Keralites to Kerala ethnic groups. Thanks to Aymatth2 for creating Kerala ethnic groups. Salih  ( talk ) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to have doubts about it. It will be a good idea to merge this content into Kerala ethnic groups. But is it right to convert Non-Malayali Keralites into a redirect page. As I've already said, it is a neologism and I don't think anyone would be searching for using this keyword.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 08:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it will be best to merge all the useful content with the other article and delete this one. As I've already pointed out, we don't usually have Wikipedia articles with such names; there aren't even redirect pages with such names- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to make the page a redirect, rather than delete it, if only to preserve the edit history. I could imagine someone looking for information on Keralites minority groups using a name like this, which would come to the top of the search results if not a direct hit. A redirect costs next to nothing, may be useful, does no harm. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, you're right! My point of reasoning is that apart from being a neologism, the name of the article also seemed slightly divisive and xenophobic. Anyway, as you say, we need to preserve the edit histories. Yeah, a redirect seems pretty okay to me- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep  "Ethnically divisive" is a wrong reason to delete an article. Neither do I see any POV issues. There are about 1 million non-Malayalam speaking Keralites, bigger than the population of hundreds of cities. I support the title Non-Malayalis in Kerala proposed by User:Salih. -- Docku:  What's up?  18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This would create a problem, since we would have a fork. This article includes some original research on non-Malayam communities in general, without sources, followed by short descriptions of these communities, while Kerala ethnic groups does not contain the original research, but does contain more detail on all ethnic groups in Kerala including those that speak Malayalam. The other editors contributing to this discussion had reached consensus of redirecting to Kerala ethnic groups, and in fact had started to improve that article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Vote change: Redirect to Kerala ethnic groups. Guess i overlooked this proposal. While I understand what is in Non-Malayali Kerlaites can be accomodated in Kerala ethnic groups, it still could be a separate article if it has had sufficient information for a stand-alone. But, with whatever little information is in the article, better be redirected to Kerala ethnic groups, atleast for now. -- Docku:  What's up?  18:34, 14 March 2009 (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.