Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maruthoor

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maruthoor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All references are from the self published family websites. Searching provides a lot of references for places called 'Maruthoor' which are in no way related to the family. The history of Saint Thomas Christians is provided in the beginning, but notability is not inherited, and being a member of a notable group does not confer any automatic notability to the family. Jupitus Smart 14:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- this article is somewhat better than Peralummoottil family, but I am far from sure how appropriate it is to have articles on particular families, such as this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree the article is written in a more concise way than the one on Peralummoottil family, the fact that it does not have any WP:RS acts against its favour. All the sources mentioned in the article are from the family website. The history therein is sourced from hearsay which over the years gets distorted to a point where the history is just aggrandisement. If the author can provide reliable sources which indicate that the family is notable, then I would not mind withdrawing my nomination, but till then I think it should be a delete. Jupitus Smart 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. unable to locate RS. self pub'd sources on page. Dloh cierekim 22:07, 1 May 2017 (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.