Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madakkavil

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 of the debate was no consensus Thryduulf 18:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madakkavil

Delete - this term has 5 results on Google. Hoax...? Wickethewok 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - just because a term does not have enough results on google does not mean that it is a hoax. if you read the article you realise it is from the state of kerala in India. there are a lot of terms, places and historical events in India that are not on google. The reason being that internet is not easily accessible in most parts of the country.

This article is open to debate but definitely not a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak2408 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep On wikipedia I have read thousands of pages that are of no relevance to anybody outside the US. maybe not even to all people in the US. Do I then assume that Wikipedia and such sites are only meant for US and the western world?

India is a country of more than a billion people. 95 percent of these have no access at all to the internet. Which means that there are hundreds and thousands of communities that have no representation. But is that the way it should be? I thought the internet is an open, democratic forum ensuring equality for all irrespective of their geographical location. Why I wonder people would want a harmless page like this deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment - you really don't seem to undersand the issue here... The point is, that you created an article without any references or outside sources of any kind. WP is for articles of all kinds. However, just because a subject is from outside the US, does not mean it gets special treatment. As I'm sure you agree, a geographical bias would harmful to Wikipedia. Wickethewok 07:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply to comment - I do understand the issue. I have not asked for any special treatment. You said there are no outside references. Please go to the page called 'list of nair tharavadus'. That has a list of tharavadus like the one I mentioned on the page. Most of them have no 'outside references'. Probably we need to have a reference that people in North America understand. I guess that would satisfy all queries.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 (talk • contribs)
        • Reply to reply - I'd like to point out that the list you are talking about features almost exclusively red links. I'd also like to point out that several of the few that actually have articles are up for deletion as well. You really can't add things to Wikipedia without sources - if you do, it is indistinguishable from "original research", which is specifically not allowed on Wikipedia. Citing examples of articles that don't follow this policy is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Wickethewok 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
          • why delete?

I really cannot understand your sustained opposition to this article. Anyway, I maintain that this is not a hoax and worth an article on this site. I knew that the internet originated in the US but did not understand the extent to which American ideas and restricted world view influences it even today (the world much bigger than US & western europe my friend).This will be my last comment on this issue. Do whatever you want with this article. Maybe we in the rest of the world need our own 'wikipedia' (it will represent most of the world population!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak2408 (talk • contribs)

          • yknow... - saying that Americans are closed minded is a poor argument to keep a Wikipedia article imo. I suggest you present some sources as requested rather than go on about how prejudiced the US is if you want your article to be kept. I've recommended hundreds of articles for deletion on the grounds of original research/no references/no google hits. Your article is no different. But if you like to think that your article is being deleted because its about a non-US subject, you are welcome to believe that. Wickethewok 17:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
          • ushdknow

This isn't a debate about American's being close minded. I am not an AK-47 carrying supporter of Osama who hates Americans. We in this part of the world are also english-speaking, college educated, liberal people like I expect you are too. My point was and is that just because there were only a few google hits or because you have never heard of it doesn't make it irrelevant. The point is there ARE Google hits which will grow in number. Anybody can create web pages ... many web pages and give them as external sources. If this was a hoax, believe me, there would've been a number of external links to prove that it is not. Without sounding anti-american I will still say that if you were in this part of the world you would not be arguing on these lines.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - Ummm, so you are saying that because there are no sources, that proves that its true? That makes very little sense... Wickethewok 18:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - and tag with {{unreferenced}}. Read WP:BIAS. Assume good faith. Let editors familiar with the subject matter do what google failed to do. --Dodo bird 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Don't you think the editor could at least provide a reference to some sort of written material, such as a book or periodical that contains information on this? Given its supposed association with important positions and people, should it not be referenced there? I would like to know if this subject has been written about before, because otherwise it seems to be original research. Wickethewok 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now per Dodo bird; better to assist new author on relevant issues rather than press for summary deletion -- initial prod tag added six minutes after user began article, while he was still writing it up! Monicasdude 18:59, 17 April 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.