Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavithreswaram


 * 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. Big Dom  09:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Pavithreswaram

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete The article does not provide reliable sources and and is not notable. Suraj T  08:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per long standing custom any town/village is inherently notable regardless of size, but I'm not sure this is either. There is an area designated Pavithreswaram on g-maps, but it doesn't seem to be any kind of continuous settlement.  And this article lists locations that are in fact in nearby villages like Puthoor and Cherupoika.  And I don't know where the author got that 26k population figure.  If this can be verified as an actual village, I'd vote keep. --Oakshade (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to fall short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The place does exist, confirm that it is there (one of them is a government source).  Lynch  7  14:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Existence ≠ notability; a one-word mention in a list, and a passing one-word mention in the personal details of a priest, is a lot less than what notability guidelines require. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, really? I'm afraid GNG doesn't speak anything about geographical places in particular. Notability concerns about geographical locations have been raised in the past, and if you'd followed them, you'd have found that there was no consensus. You might also want to read Notability_(geography), Notability (Geographic locations), Common_outcomes.  Lynch 7  14:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: As per generally accepted terms, all geographical locations on Wikipedia are considered as inherently notable. The links provided by MikeLynch testifies that --  Tinu  Cherian  - 15:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * keep is now a reliably sourced region, so standard precedent is to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say it is now reliably sourced. I had some time in my hands and decided to look up Pavithreswaram for reliable sources and got a bunch of them and I have improved the article. I have struck through my delete above. And the article has much scope for improvement. Suraj  T  05:13, 8 July 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.