Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attanthangal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attanthangal[edit]

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

Attanthangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not reliable source to even prove the bare minimum WP:NGEO guideline. Sohom (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've modified the coordinates given in the article, thus a click on them shows at Google maps and Bing maps this location exists. I think it's a case of WP:POPULATED ("Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable"). --Cyfal (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I do see a few reliable sources barely mentioning this as well on a deeper BEFORE search. That being said, I wonder given the lack of coverage whether it would be appropriate to redirect this to Chennai (with no prejudice towards recreation). Sohom (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To continue discussion w/r/t sourcing. Edit conflict on the close, and per request on my Talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the relist, the comment I was going to make in an attempted relist is that the above arguments for keep make assertions that WP:POPULATED has been met or that there is coverage available in TOI or The Hindu, but I'm not seeing any examples of sources that support either of those assertions in this discussion or in the article's citations. signed, Rosguill talk 15:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the only three sources that have barely mentioned this place to the article. This does include one pulication from TOI and one from The Hindu.

      However, if we zoom out of Wikipedia policy land for a second, Chennai is a huge metropolitan city that is the sixth-most populous city in India. Normally localities of such cities get hundreds (if not thousands) of sources talking about them. The fact that there are only three sources which are barely mentions of this neighbourhood, tells me that this neighbourhood isn't notable enough for a standalone article at this point. Sohom (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the Census of India it is a village. It is, as far as census data (and the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority) goes at least, in Sholavaram Panchayat Union. There are Census results going back decades. It had 424 people in the 1951 Census, for example. Definitely populated. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Attanthangal&oldid=1198494843"