Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edayilakkad

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edayilakkad

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Malayalam language: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quality issues, possibly beyond any fixing. See discussion at talk:, and at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#I.27ve_had_enough._.22Approved_articles.22_clearly_no_better_than_ones_that_skip_it Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:GEOLAND an inhabited island is presumed Notable, and in my opinion that is an almost automatic qualification for inclusion if meaningful information can be verified. While I haven't yet found WP:GNG's usual expectation for significant coverage in any particular source, I have been finding a fair number of sources with various brief mentions. Note that source searching is difficult because there are several variations on the spelling, and because useful search results tend to be heavily buried under garbage search results. Alsee (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. An inhabited island in the U.S. would almost certainly be kept, and if this is deleted I'm sure it would just get re-created in a few years as India comes more online with sources. Alsee (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Here's the article at Malayalam language Wikipedia: ml:ഇടയിലക്കാട്. There are a mix of blog-sources as well as usable sources in that version. Alsee (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether an island is implicitly notable, it's about whether this article passes our standards to adequately demonstrate that. WP:RS and WP:V are strong policy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, I do not disagree with your concerns about quality. However the excessive 11 keeps here indicate that you've missed a significant detail. Your first sentence got it backwards, it is about whether the island is implicitly Notable. Notability isn't a property of the article, it's a property of the topic. An article that contains zero evidence of notability is a Keep, if sources exist and the topic itself satisfies Notability. In the most extreme case you keep the article and delete all the junk down to a single sentence stub. An irredeemably promotional article on a company might get hit with an unsympathetic TNT, but we're going to salvage anything we can for a desirable article on an inhabited place. Documenting significant geography is about as close to objectively-desirable as it gets. Alsee (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low". The language barrier and that it is small make it difficult to find sources, unfortunately. —Paleo Neonate - 05:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOLAND states: 'Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history.' This has a population of over 1000 people, plus a long history. Boleyn (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject passes WP:GEOLAND. Pratyush (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Pile-on per WP:GEOLAND + article has been markedly improved since nomination. Suggest WP:SNOW close or withdrawal by nominator. — JFG ^talk 12:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Markedly improved? By stripping fact tags and mis-linking words to the wrong article, just because they look similar?

If an article in this state is a "snow keep", then there is something wrong with our processes. This is not an article of encyclopedic quality, but Indian villages get a pass on all of our usual standards. Can you read this article and learn anything? Can you have confidence that any of those things were correct? The article is so poorly written as to be incomprehensible, to the point where another editor can't even fix it. Is it in a lake, an arm of the sea, or the Kavvayi Backwaters - and is it even salt or fresh water? An article in such a vague state is not fit to be in WP mainspace. Nor would we accept such an article, if it wasn't on an Indian village. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, having a look at gmaps here answers some of your questions, my question is, can gmaps be used in this article to confirm these (and others like the 2 bridges joining it to the mainland)? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per past discussions, gmaps is a primary source and so the anally-retentive of WP editors just love to revert its positive use as a source, on that basis. Not a view I hold with myself. Pretty much everything I know about this backwater area (and a bunch of edits in the last few days) has been from using it as a source.

That's not the point here though. Obviously this particular article will end up kept, but we need to clear up what this issue is where Indian villages do not need to observe WP:V or WP:RS, let alone WP:CSD, and are permitted to stay on the basis of "we suspect that it exists", even when unsourced, misspelled, bloated with cruft and any content that is present is largely inaccurate. We are not here as a directory or gazeteer, we're an encyclopedia. If an article can't be encyclopedic, it shouldn't be here. Having an article title and a gmaps link is not enough, yet clearly those here think it is. Why is this? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we most certainly are a gazetteer. See Wikipedia:Gazetteer. Smartyllama (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Meets WP:GEOLAND.--Elton-Rodrigues 15:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)
Keep. The island, as described in the article, clearly passes our notability requirements for islands. As to whether it is factual, there are quite a few Google hits for its Malayalam name, as well as a sizable and referenced article on the Malalayam Wikipedia. That's enough for me.

I agree that this article has many issues: it is written in terrible English, it has very few references, and large parts of it are unverified. However, these can all be fixed: the text can be copyedited, references can be found, and unverifiable parts deleted, and something will certainly remain of the article, likely far more than at most other geo stubs. Besides, I find it unlikely that anyone can not learn anything at all from the article even in its current state. Daß Wölf 19:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep meets GEOLAND and it isn't utter crap. I'm fine with the PRODing of random villages that have zero references and tell us how beautiful the palm trees are per TNT/WP:V, but this isn't that. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was fixable, and has been fixed to a great degree. bd2412 T 22:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is more useful to our readers with this page than without. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated place and a named natural feature. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC) ps. i have added some sourced words about fauna and flora. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.