Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kozhencherry (Kerala)

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 Deleted as A10; page is an exact copy of Kozhencherry. — Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kozhencherry (Kerala)[edit]

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

While a town of this size is certainly notable, the page in its current form is nothing but promotion of the city and statements of unreferenced stats. This is a new editor who has written an entirely unreferenced page that would required extensive work by another editor to make it meet standards. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So if I understand correctly, you're not contesting that it meets WP:GEOLAND -- just that it's in such a state that WP:TNT might apply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: yes to the first part, possibly to the second? I take issue with people creating pages that are no where near up to standard but then not being able to delete them because the page's subject is notable. I want to be clear, I'm not just talking about a few formatting issues when I say "not up to standard". The page would have to be completely rewritten for it to satisfy any formatting and style guides. Basically now that the page is there, someone else has to fix it. It seems more appropriate (IMHO) to delete the page until such time as a properly done page can be created. Does that make sense? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I can see that. Thing is, I can't make head nor tail of the redirect issue raised below, so I think I'll just leave it at tagging and move on... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Shawn in Montreal: looks like someone previously made this page at Kozhencherry and it was redirected. I believe the IP below is saying the content should be moved to Kozhencherry. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Kozhencherry, which was disruptively redirected by an administrator to the district when it should simply have been sourced, as obviously notable. Who needs vandals when we have admins to do their work for them? If there are problems with this article then they can easily be fixed by editing, including, if really necessary, deleting everything apart from the first sentence. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2016 (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.