Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pariakal

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 delete.  Sandstein  20:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pariakal[edit]

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

Non-notable... beach? KDS4444 (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm doubting the factual accuracy of the content. There is a "Parikkal" in Tamil Nadu which is nowhere near Midalam.[1] I can't find anything resembling "Pariakal" near Midalam.[2] Okay, I do see there is a "Pariakal Beach" in that area, but right now I don't know if it's notable. [3] --Oakshade (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)::[reply]

...And existence ≠ notability, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GEOLAND. Thanks to Oakshade for at least identifying that the subject exists. However, rarely has a Google search turned up as little as one for "Pariakal Beach", even without quotes - a Facebook timeline, some wiki, bad OCR, and a few spambot pages. I wouldn't for a second think that a Google search in English for a foreign location is the be-all-and-end-all of notability tests, but this doesn't inspire confidence in the existence of deep sources elsewhere. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 05:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't source it, although when I ran a map search for the 2 place names mentioned in the article, this beach showed halfway between them. No prejudice against re-starting this article if someone can source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 16 November 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.