Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umayakkal Nachiyar


 * 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 deleted. G1, A1 and A7. DrKiernan (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Umayakkal Nachiyar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I originally prodded this with "Minimal context essay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish stories and opinions." The author then replaced my prod reason with "very important article on life in Ramnad which is rarely represented in the Net." which I counted as removing the prod, so I bring the article here. Seems to be an essay, doesn't seem to have much to do with the subject, and seems to be mostly original research. If an article can be written on the subject, we may as well delete this and start over. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - sounds like a folk tale. No indication that it exists in verifiable print. Non-notable. SWik78 (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Milburn

This is an essay narrated through the experiences of a person in that time period and region.The word 'story' is used in the interchangeable way it is being used by writers,news reports are also called as stories, a generic term for all writing.It is in this paricular narrative style for easy readabilty,like giving an example to an abstract theory or principle.without this example it will be very dry and may not create the interest to read.It can be categorised as life in rural india,life in Ramnad,early 20th century Ramnad and so on. Plantgrowreap (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Perhaps categorising appropriately will be sufficient,and suggestions towards this is welcome.I have categories like the above in mind and I am not familiar so far with the categorising process. In summary,this is an illustration of the Life in Ramnad,Rural South India in early 20th century.The agriculture,education,attributes of the people,economic situations and the general struggle of the people has been illustrated. Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - unsourced, an essay or original research, not what an encyclopedia is for. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't decide if the subject is notable or not based on the style. If it's workable content, it really does need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. matt91486 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KeepUnfortunately,there is no research done on certain parts of the world and the writing itself strats now only.Writing and preserving histories and traditions are not prevalent in all parts of the world.

In india there is an annual festival in which all the records are burntor floated in the rivers.Is there an article about it in wikipedia? Do you want to make Wikipedia as Europedia or still you do not want to know anything about the world outside of your conscience.

Everything has to be written once originally.

writing itself starts now only, to print articles on subjects that cover Ramnad and the peoples' lives there,now we have to start a free printopedia,why to go back in technology'''

replies given in the beginning of the article itself about notability and suitabilty,it is obvious proof that comments are being made without reading the article'''

Mr.Millburn who wrote the 'delete'prod did that in a millisecond of posting the article,keep that in consideration

Before posting any further comment,you are encouraged to read the article and the discussion,editors are supposed to read,that is their primary qualification,not having an automatic software which alerts and you respond like a test of reflex in a millisecond,

Plantgrowreap (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, everything does have to be written about once originally, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. No matter the other flaws or benefits of the article, Wikipedia can not have an entire article based on original research. Instead, articles must be based on reliable sources, and be written from the neutral point of view. Yes, I admit this article has not been around long, but you are the one talking of responsibility- it is the responsibility of the author to write an article that meets our content inclusion guidelines. This one does not. I am giving the article a chance- I could have very easily deleted it within seconds of you posting it- perhaps as having no context, or perhaps simply as being non notable. However, I didn't, I am giving you a chance to improve the article or convince us that it should be kept, and all you have done so far is admit that no reliable sources exist, that this article is written as an essay and is based entirely upon original research. J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK,Mr.Millburn,I accept the above guidelines in toto and I am working on improving the article,by modifications and citation of sources for the various statements made in the artcle.Thank you for the firm stand taken with a view to maintain the standards. Plantgrowreap (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Edited:References of reliable sources for statements on the background scenario of the article relating to agriculture, irrigation and ouptput of cultivation to build the hardy environment of the article given Plantgrowreap (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Edited Plantgrowreap (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC) References to Hegel's Philosophy of history and the Original History school,sources for the statements in the Introduction and for the Theme of the article, cited.

Edited Plantgrowreap (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Reference for the educational services provided by the Missionaries cited

Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)what is this actually about,well whpq for that you have to read the article and discussion,editing and voting is 99.9999%reading and without reading and witout pausing to give constructive suggestions,in a huff you ask what is this and vote to delete.People like you who vote like this should be disqualified ,when one cannot read anything what he can write.reading needs discipline to invest time,off the cuff remarks need nothing ,reading of thousand pages inspires to write one page,writers can very well modify their writing but those who cannot even read cannot ever think of writing,one thing i am becoming very sure,that is wikipedia should allow only those who make 'informed comments' as a proof of their being readers and that they have read the article on which they comment to have got anything to do with voting,writing should not be considered as cheap and wayward voting should not be considered as sacred.Again i encourage visitors of wikipedia to be readers first Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Keep those who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about  wikipedia
 * Delete - what is this actually about? It's still a rambling essay -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) one man's idea of notability is many men's idea of notoriety those who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about  wikipedia invoking notability etc is very debatable issue and particularly when someone from another continent and another culture comments about notability etc,he should consider his own knowledge of countries and people,except Gandhi how many notables they have knowledge of,Hilary doubted that Gandhi might be thought of as petrol bunk attendant by the american students,well,she should know the general awareness of her public and it showed,before commenting,ensure that you are doing so with humility and with knowledge of their own profound limitations, Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)those who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about  wikipedia Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Keep..it is posted just now and further editing is absolutely possible,what makes you to hurry,


 * Comment - Well, you have assumed that I did not read it. I can tell it is a rambling essay because by trying to read it, I cannot make any sense of it.  Not at all.  It might be about some woman named Umayakkal, but as I said in my first comment, the text is rambling and there is not any clear statement about what the article topic is. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Plantgrowreap (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC) to mostly harmless,but harmful nevertheless
 * Delete. As much as I hate to delete majority world topics, this has to go. It isn't an article but an essay, and an appalingly written one at that. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm patrolling deletions against systematic bias did you mean i'm patrolling against deletions made due to systematic bias

but harmful nevertheless

The consensus is reached not by numerical votes but by'''strength of reasons

Wikipedia says that of the '2 million articles only one thousand are featurableothers are all written by non-encylo contributors and pros collaboration comes exactly here only,

then according to the way of harmsall the two million articles have to be deleted,i insist you people to read around wikipedia for a change

The reasons,let me add one more:Notability is not a CONSENSUS in wikipedia policy,and notbility guidelines are not policy as of now,

right now notability is given absurd interpretations by some people,gangsters,criminals being sensationalised and puppet-rock stars being promoted by conventional corporate media are only notable as per their undersatnding,despite them being notorious notoriety is not notability,wikipedia stands against all that commercial corporate conventional conspiratory media stands for.

why harms are coming in the way of wikipedia

i repeatthose who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,

only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about  wikipedia''' Plantgrowreap (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're over reacting here, please assume good faith. Many people who have commented here are experienced contributors- not that it matters, their arguments are sound. Ironically, your arguments are as long and as rambling as your essay, and so aren't the most sound in the world... J Milburn (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Plantgrowreap (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Mr.millburn you have not replied to my comment that you have nominated my article for deletion within seconds

you have not paused to suggest other options

you focussed the attention of the vistors to deletion

and you are not giving reasoning,read my comments,have you repied to any of them,your misunderstanding of wikipedia policies,and everything about wikipedia

That you have won stars for proposing deletions

that YOU have a strong faith in crime as a basis for greatness

don't call any article as rambling, i call you reading handicapped

i am under no obligation to write crime comics for kids

you nominated in a tearing hurry

your idea on notability is just crimes and rock bands,

read my comments on this and reply,REPLY,these are all very substantial issues threatenung the environment of wikipedia

first you evaluate yourself for attitude before doing anything further with wikipedia

your being an administrator well,to use your own language,I can do this or that,i am giving you chance etc,shows that you are not into wikipedia philosophy or thinking at all

can you tell me whether we can discuss your user behavior,discussing my article or whatever with you needs evaluation you first you do not read,you nominate for deletions recklessly,you have no idea what wikipedia is all about

and you are admonishing,threatening and doing all sorts of funny things like kids do for practical joking

i accuse you to be a vandal in disguise,after proper process you are a candidate for 'rapid deletion' from wikipedia user group i have seen the subjects of your interest,deletion is one of your taunts,you disturb people here

none of my reactions are over-reactions

you refuse to see yourself,accept your vandalistic behavior and you do not believe you need  reform

have you got the matter in you to react like a writer,

no more notabilty points,

i accuse you to be a vandal,i know my article needs improvements but wikipedia DOES NOT have any need for YOU

All are my accusations which in good faith i am communicating to you before taking up with user behaviour forum

do not take it personally

you call my comments rambling,i call you are reading handicapped,

you lack the discipline to read serious material,you can read 'serial murder stories,

you are against my posting because it is against your faith in crime just read and reply

you are being given an insight into yourself

you assume authority to judge and condemn others before doing anything about wikipedia you write what is your understanding about the philosophy of wikipedia,this is no web video game, i told you,you are commenting about inane unagreed details,counting the leaves,while forgetting the forest,the reason for existence of Wikipedia you have lost sight of you read this in good faith,i assume it, and react,

you have spoken about authoritarianism and practicing it here

Before making any comments about my reaction and my article,you reply to my observations on your behaviour,i am just being frank and helpful on a level you would benefit

this is what is important here

be a good boy and benefit from feedback,
 * I do not appreciate your patronising tone and your unfounded accusations. I have requested that another admin look into your behaviour, as no doubt you are simply going to disregard anything I say. J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2008 (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.