Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulu Nadu


 * 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. Sufficient consensus by established editors. The only delete vote other than nominator is more a comment on others' votes than on the subject. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Tulu Nadu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is quite controversial as Tulu Nadu is not a recognized region by Karnataka. Reference sources may be self published and cannot be verified. Also I do not see the notability criteria being met and as to why it should be on Wikipedia. PageImp (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that the region is not an official subdivision of the country is not determinative as to its notability. Compare New England and Scottish Highlands. Tulu Nadu has historical and linguistic notability. See, e.g., Karnataka's Rich Heritage - Art and Architecture: From Prehistoric Times to the Hoysala Period p. 382 ("Tulunadu (South Kanara district and adjacent northern Kerala), was the traditional land of the Alupa dynasty."), The Dravidian Languages p. 158 ("Tulunad (tulunadu), where Tulu is traditionally spoken, is geographically and sociolinguistically compact. Its geographic compactness derives from the natural boundaries that enclose it"). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

'''This page should not be deleted. Why? ''' 1. Can article survive on Wiki for more than 12 years if it didn't meet notability criteria, and suddenly someone decides it lacks notability, it baffled me? 2. And the region which has it's own language, culture, history how can someone say it doesn't meet notability criteria?. 2. Is not being "official region" a criteria to consider for deletion on Wikipedia? 3. Or Is not being "recognized" makes it controversial? 4. Is all the articles on wiki are about "recognized" things? So there can not exist an article related to region which is not recognized? Is Tibet a recognized country? (talk to Me)
 * Keep
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC) One of the "keep" !votes was made by an IP, and the other looks like a typical fake !vote made by a fanboy. Delete. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep - seems to me we're looking for reliable sources which show that this place is notable. Well, it is referred to as a place in The Hindu, The Times of India, The Economist etc. I suspect that there is a lot more to find in published books, scholarly papers etc. The fact that it is controversial is not a reason to delete. JMWt (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep - "Tulu Nadu" itself seems like a notable historic and linguistic region, but this page cites mostly dead links and pages that reference aspects of the regions which are not specific to "Tulu Nadu" but are rather just characteristics of the constituent regions. While the page looks good and has lots of citations, I wish the sources were better and there was less material based on the underlying regions and more about "Tulu Nadu".Smmurphy(Talk) 15:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Gets a huge number of hits in reliable sources. The current poor state of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. Zerotalk 05:30, 5 November 2016 (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.