Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eranjinkeezhil

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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eranjinkeezhil[edit]

Article is about a place that may or may not exist. No reliable sources have been provided to establish that it does. I offered to help the original author out if they could point me to any English sources, but they have not replied. I can find no such sources on my own, so being that the article is so poorly written I believe it is unsalvageable and should be deleted. Khalfani Khaldun 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly written and seems fake. Delete. CanadianNine 22:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not fake; it's a small neighborhood. Salih (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a real village but I can't find reliable resources. If it were in the UK or US it probably wouldn't be a problem. Sad. 01:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it an officially recognised area, though (the usual standard for "automatic notability" of places)? I don't see it on the district's official list of settlements, for example [1]. Of course, the issue is probably being complicated by the "do it however the **** you please" style of Dravidian transcription which changes even within the article ("Eranchin Keezhil", "Eranjinkeezhil", etc.). (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails verifiability, which is even required for dots on a map which otherwise have been given an exemption from the notability requirement. I also assert lack of notability as a deletion reason. ~~(Might be notable as the sound made when sneezing, if sources could be found!~~ Edison (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2009 (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.