Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moorkanade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus, default to keep. Proto::type 13:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moorkanade

Moorkanade (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Stub about a place in the city of Trichur; the article only states a family lives there that appears to have no claim to notability. --Nehwyn 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - the article was just added. Shouldn't it be given a chance to grow? What it is missing is some verifiable sources to help establish the information, and a stub tag. -- Whpq 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Following the WP:LOCAL guideline, article such as this should get their independent page when their mention in the mother page becomes too large. This is not the case, as Moorkanade does not appear to be mentioned in Thrissur at all. Ordinarily, the info in this article could be merged into the mother article, but in this case, there is nothing to merge, as the article merely states a particular family (with no claim to notability given and no GHits) lives in that place. --Nehwyn 18:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Can I know whether you have proposed this AFD thinking that Morrkanade is a place in Thrissur City or a place in Thrissur District.  Doctor Bruno  02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the mother article per nominators remark above. MartinDK 14:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. IMO, all places that really exists should have an individual article. --Terence Ong (C | R) 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that something exists does not confer automatical notability (WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of all information) and do not automatically deserve their own article (WP:LOCAL). --Nehwyn 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
But what about the articles about American places with less than 1000 population. Should they all be deleted  Doctor Bruno  12:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, keep to the article in question. We're looking for a reason why this particular group of building should evade WP:LOCAL. --Nehwyn 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. How many people should live in a village to make it notable to appear in Wikipedia  Doctor Bruno  20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, stick to the article in question. This is not a village, and we're not here to discuss villages in general. We are discussing this particular place within a city. --Nehwyn 20:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Particular place within a city, which has more population than 1000s of places in America which have individual articles. The definition of "city" and "village" differs from America and India. Places in India have more people than towns of America. How are you very certain that this is a place within a city and not a village. Can you prove that. Have you been to that place. If you can't prove, then it is a bad faith comment  Doctor Bruno  02:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Articles are evaluated based on their content. The article itself states this is a place within a city, not a separate community (such as a town or village), and therefore we treat is as such. As for your remarks about nationality, the current nomination is not based upon them, but simply states that no claim to notability is made in the article. Please, keep to discussing that. --Nehwyn 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the claim to notability with Albion, Illinois and Aledo, Illinois. They are called as cities. Can anyone confirm whether this is a place in Thrissur District or Thrissur Town  Doctor Bruno  16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you think those articles are not notable, feel free to propose them for deletion. But on this page, please keep to the article in question. --Nehwyn 16:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, express your opinion explicitly as to why WP:LOCAL should not apply. This is a debate, not a vote! --Nehwyn 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Why should this article be kept, if the present article in nominated for deletion. The village I work has a population of 20,000, which is almost 7 times as this place, but unfortunately that will not be mentioned in Google and hence is not notable where as a village with just 3000 people is notable if that is in America  Doctor Bruno  20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, keep to discussing the article in question. We're not talking about villages here, and nationality is not the issue. Lack of claim to notability is. --Nehwyn 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Albion, Illinois and Aledo, Illinois are cities. They are county seats and pass WP:V. utcursch | talk 12:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This also passes WP:V  Doctor Bruno  16:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
True. The motivation for the deletion nomination is indeed not "unverified", but rather "makes no claim to notability". --Nehwyn 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Strong Delete has no potential to be anything more than a stub. I grew up in a town of 2500 people which has an article at Longford, Tasmania and only does because it has a tourism industry, is historically important to the state it is in and is a major regional center for it's area. It isn't forced to rely on the fact it has a church and a family in it to try and assert notability. •Elomis• 03:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. utcursch | talk 12:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm a Keralite. I'm residing in Kerala. Moorkanade situates in Kerala. The place is notable.

If some persons from England, Africa or Mumbai or Banglore says that this place is non notable, how can I agree with such foolishness since I'm a native wikipedian. If this place were in America or England, everyone will say that this place is highly notable.(Even smallplaces in England with a population of 1000 are included in this encyclopedia).But News report from Malayalam Newspapers are not available in google. That's why no google hits..!I'm ready to scan and upload hundreds of news report in Malayalam about this place. Since I'm a Malayalam Language journalists it's not a big task to me. But howmany of u know Malayalam...? I think it's a great challenge to create Kerala related or Malayalam Language related articles. Google hits are not available even to notable places. My humble request in this context is that Google hits must not be taken as a yardstick in Asian related AfD's. Newspapers of Vernacular Languages may have millions of readership. For example, in India every state has its own language. There are more than 20 widely speaking native languages in India. But the news reports from the newspapers of such languages are not available in google search.Take the case of Malayala Manorama Newspaper. Currently this Malayalam language newspaper has a readership of over 9 million, with a circulation base of over 1.4 million copies according to Audit Beureu of Circulations. Manorama is one of the India's largest selling and most widely read news paper. There are more than 50 such newspapers in India. News reports from such dailies are not available in google eventhough it have millions of readership. But news reports from English dailies with 1000 or 2000 copies are available in google search and wikipedians consider it as big big google hits..! Articles from English speaking places will easily pass verifiability test and notability test because of this reason. Is it really misleading..? In this context of notability tests based on google hits may be a worthless, foolish effort. In such circumstances we must consider the words of native wikipedians with more importance in Asian related AFd's. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 11:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - you make some interesting observations. Clearly, google hits alone are no indicator of notability, and there are certainly challenges in covering non-english speaking countries in the english wikipedia. However, there have to be objective tests and standards for notability, verifiability and the rest. We can't accept the words of "native" wikipedians any more than we can take the words of any other wikipedian. There must be sources. -Kubigula (ave) 05:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article makes no claim of nobility, regardless if that claim is substantiated (which would be another issue). Claims of nobility would include, given stricly as hypothetical examples here, home to one of the top 10 riches people in India, church as been visited by the last 4 holy leaders, longest continually inhabited settlement etc. There are all sorts of cliams that could be made, but none are. In regards to the argument that if some other city has an article, ie Aledo, Illinois, so should this one, please see the essay, Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability which may provide further insight into my (and likely others') dismissal of such an argument.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's hard to support the inclusion of an article about a "place" with no assertion of notability. I could find no english language sources with any information about the place. I appreciate that there are language barriers at work here, but we need more information to justify the article. -Kubigula (ave) 05:41, 20 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Moorkanade_2207.html"