Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakalomattam family

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakalomattam family[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)

Just as in the AfD for Nedumpally, this is a family with only one instance of mention in a historic legend. There is no reason to believe they deserve a paper under WP:NOPAGE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, India, and Kerala. Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What rubbish! There are tons of hits on a google books search, though it is clear that the spelling of the name varies. What WP:BEFORE did you do? See also what links here. The article is pretty poor, but that is no reason for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the surface-level searches you've given confirm the issue at hand: this family is not suitable for its own page per WP:NOPAGE. A number of editors—including one recent SPA—have made something of a sport out of linking to this article and other former family articles with spurious or non-existent sourcing. The Google results seem hopeful at first, but deeper examination reveals two trends: 1.) trivial coverage of the same legend that, I'd argue, should be its own article or 2) trivial coverage of a disputed priestly lineage. Considering this is a section of the project I'm regularly involved in, I'm disappointed in the lack of assuming good faith. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that you didn't actually take the time to look at the sources in google books beyond maybe the first few. I linked several books with sig cov below which appeared in the search links posted by Johnbod which are clearly not surface level or trivial, but in-depth significant coverage. It's difficult to assume good faith when the evidence was presented to you, and then you didn't bother to examine it properly.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: While I appreciate your efforts to expand the page as per WP:HEY (I think other editors will probably concur that it's there or very close), part of assuming good faith is even assuming plausible disagreement; I clearly examined the sources, considering I referred to specific examples in my initial response. For an editor with over a decade of experience, this is disappointing and disheartening behavior. Please consider brushing up on the WP:AGF policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti Sometimes criticisms need to be made. This was a poorly thought through nomination, and the evidence being presented here is substantial in what should have been readily obvious in a competent WP:BEFORE search. I hope by being stern with you, that you will be more careful in following WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article at AFD in future. Please read Wikipedia:Competence is required which addresses exactly where I am coming from in relation to our WP:AGF policy.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Again, I am disappointed. Replying in a dormant thread to land a personal attack, say policy does not apply because you want think "being stern" will teach a lesson, and then accusing an editor of incompetence–because I disagreed over the utility of some sources. Please do not try reopening this, but I encourage you to keep digging for info to save this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not heading anywhere productive, so I think its best we both move on.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so all those books are wrong, are they? The fact that not everybody's descent, often going back centuries, is not completely clear hardly adds up to " a disputed priestly lineage". Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV from the google books link provided by Johnbod above where there are multiple books with in-depth significant coverage. WP:BEFORE was either not followed or followed incompetently.4meter4 (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cool your jets, 4meter4. Besides this book, I was unable to find any sources regarding this family that actually met the significant coverage standards; further connection between the priestly family and that which was handled in this article before it was cleaned of unsourced or malsourced content. Your very brief assessment of sources and appraisals of another's editor's actions as incompetent are independently lamentable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are others if you scroll and look through about the first 10 pages, such as [1] (pg. 164 in particular but the family or members of the family are discussed on many pages), [2], [3]. Further, many of the books only available in snippet view make important assertions about the family from what can be seen, and possibly contain more significant content. Given that all of the Archdeacons of India (the head of the Church of India; at least the Catholic head) came from this family for centuries ( see [4] which has sig cov on the family and gives coverage of a dissertation on the position and thus another quality source for coverage of the family), it would be impossible to discuss the topic of Christianity in India without covering the family. 4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Granted that the article as currently written might bow too much to the hagiography and not enough to the scholarly literature, it does appear that the scholarly literature takes the notability of this family seriously. Brian (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved since nomination with the addition of content sourced from additional reliable book sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:59, 23 October 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.