Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umayartuvarankulam

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umayartuvarankulam

[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)

No source and a WP:BEFORE doesn't produce much other than Wikipedia and its derivatives. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think WP:PROD would have been easier. _MB190417_ (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting how this first few discussion go. I have nominated some others as well, and in one there is at least some GEOLAND concern. But if it goes through, I might consider my first PROD. Its creator seemed to have created several of such stubs. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as per WP:NGEO, populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Have provided references. Dan arndt (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dan arndt The sources you added are offline, and I presume you had access on them for real. Was there more info on the settlement in the source, or was that it? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: - the sources are published sources from reliable / reputable organisations. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC on the GNIS says otherwise. @Phil Bridger mentioned GNIS is not an RS for populated places per GEOLAND before. If a source of colonial times is seen as an RS, is a point of view. And the third source I can not access. If you'd add also the name of the source to what is meant to be an URL it would be great. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then also, was there more information on the settlement in the source or is that it? If there is, someone might try to get access to the source an add some more information. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - On the good faith assumption that the Report on the Census of Ceylon source provided by Dan arndt does verify that Umayartuvarankulam was, at least at one point in history, a legally recognised populated settlement. If Dan arndt has access to the source and can provide further information for the article (in particular, a population figure for 1921) that would help. If we can verify that the settlement was at one point legally recognised and populated (even if only in the past) then it passes WP:GEOLAND and should be presumed notable. I am also influenced by the fact Wikipedia suffers from systematic bias concerning places such as Umayartuvarankulam; in a case such as this we must consider the possibility that sources exist which are either not available online or not in English (or both). If we can verify that this is (or once was) a legally recognised populated settlement, then I think we can assume that reliable sources are likely to exist - even if we cannot find them right now. Keeping the article allows editors who might have better access to relevant sources to come across this article and improve it in the future. WJ94 (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 1921 census lists it as an uninhabited village [1] (bracket 180). Rupples (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - much appereciated. In which case we do not have any reliable sources verifying that this was ever a populated settlement, so my !vote is delete unless/until someone turns up another source. WJ94 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2023 (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.