Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalappurackal

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalappurackal[edit]

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

Unfortunately, this article has been troubled since its beginning (April 2011). This past May, a user started adding content as shown by the history log which was irrelevant and one of them was a copy violation (copy vio was added shortly after a protection's expiration). This is an example of what the user was adding. What troubles me is that the article's subject shifted from a surname to the history of St. Thomas Christians. Google News provided mostly results for people with the surname "Kalappurackal" but Google Books found two relevant results here and here (this second result, although relevant to Catholicism, appears to be a directory). I should also note that Google India provided nothing useful. Honestly, I believe this article could be rewritten by people familiar with the subject, but it would probably be better to move it to another Wikipedia (Tamil, Telugu, etc.). SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a specific clan, which, in much of South Asia, is pretty much equivalent to a surname, rather than a history of St. Thomas Christians in general, so I don't share the nominator's concerns about the subject shifting. Notability is another matter about which I don't yet have a view. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability and lack of sources. Looking at the content of the article, its very unlikely that a source exists. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If the subject is notable in a veracular WP, it should be notable in the English one. My main concern with this is that it is with the lack of adequate sourcing. I find the prospect of there being a reliable genealogy for 1950 years surprising, and this needs much better citation, if necessary from vernacular sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've done a search in the usual places and nothing substantial turns up. I'm not yet confident enough to say delete, though, because of the possibility that there's significant coverage in Hindi or other language sources. It would be helpful if someone knowledgeable about Indian languages could do a search for sources. --Batard0 (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the equivalent of dumping a piece of granite in a sculpting club and telling everyone that La Pieta is in there, if only they could remove the extra material. Stubs like these created by people who want to document something that is of minimal historical but high personal importance should be left to those people to write, source and improve. No problem with this being an article, assuming that the author is actually interested in turning it into one. §FreeRangeFrog 01:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last sentence, it seems, unfortunately, that the author was a single-purpose account and probably won't edit again or anytime soon. The second editor appeared to have intentions towards adding content but appeared to be incompetent as a result of ignoring repeated warnings and blocks. Honestly, with Indian subjects, especially if historical, sources aren't probably easy to come by and probably aren't English or Internet-based. Although moving this article to any of the India language Wikipedias may attract India-based users, foreign Wikipedias especially of the Middle East or India, will hardly maintain tidy and appropriate articles. SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim is made for notability of this local family. There may be printed version of the family history (Edamanakalathi Kudumba Charithram) available, but that is written by a family member himself as claimed in the article. Salih (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the Kalappurackal clan a recognized faction of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church of some sort, or is it just a really, really old family name? If the church formally recognizes it in some manner, then I say keep. Faustus37 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2012 (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.