Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keelathooval

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. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keelathooval[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not seem to meet requirements for notability per WP:GEOLAND. Also, there seems to be a dearth of reliable sources. $Clyde2_{3}^{9}$ (👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 18:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Geography, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Highly likely to meet Geoland. It doesn't help that the India Census website has been down recently but a village with such a name in Tamil Nadu does exist in censuses. Also New Indian Express has an article referring to a TN police station of that name here. No doubt named after a geographical location. Additionally the prose of the Ancestry section says 'present residents', that statement is of course not verified but it's an indication that the village is populated. Zindor (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the India Census search function located [1] has been depreciated in favour of a new population finder. It's much faster but i'm not sure yet how to cite the thing . Regardless, type in 'Keelathooval' and 2011 data on a village in Ramanathapuram district with a population of 3900 can be found. Zindor (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Possibly speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #3) Meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally-recognised place as per Zindor. Can't imagine a settlement of this size in Britain or North America, where there is no doubt as to its existence, being nominated for deletion. The settlement appears on Google maps and seems to include a police station. There is also evidence of important archaeological sites in Keelathooval. AusLondonder (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify. This would be an easy keep for me if it's true that there are "six sites of archaeological importance" in the village, but there aren't any sources for this. Google Scholar and Google Books searches for "Keelathooval" turn up nothing either. Maybe a spelling or language issue? But also, of the six sites described in the article, only one sounds like an actual archaeological site that there might be reliable sources about (Muniyappasamy and Kali Temple). The rest are trees (generally not of great antiquity...), a large rock, and another temple (which may be a historic building, but unlike excavated sites historic buildings aren't always written about). There seems to be a weak case for passing WP:GEOLAND with the census entries (see also the Google Books search), but unless someone can produce some actual sources, this needs to be cut back to what we can verify: that there exists a village called Keelathooval in Tamil Nadu and about 3900 people live there. – Joe (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not weak, it's a slam-dunk bonafide gold-plated Geoland. This AfD needs closing and those content issues, however true, have no merit here. Checking the census is basic before for possibly populated places. I can sympathise that it's become a little harder because the India Gov is playing switch-a-roo with their website, but the village is findable not only on the 2011 population finder but also in the 2001 census handbook page 162. Zindor (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say weak because there are two criteria for WP:GEOLAND: populated and legally recognised. It's populated, for sure, but legally recognised? I don't know about India but there's a long-standing consensus that in other countries (e.g. the US, Iran) that census units are chosen for statistical convenience and don't necessarily imply that it's a separate legal entity. Anyway, let's not get too bogged down in technicalities. My main point is that if all we have are census records, we can only support a stub, not the 700 words of largely unsourced text we have now. – Joe (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For India they're treated as equatable. Sometimes if the population migrates a short distance then that's handled by creating two census entries and adding (old) and (new) onto the village name. The CD-blocks don't necessarily match up, that's for sure. For old censuses, the one's run by the colonial British were notorious for convenience and inflating figures. I've not yet tried to verify the archaeological prose but at a glance i'd agree with you. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2022 (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.