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. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Padmanabhapuram Palace

[edit]

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

Unreferenced, poor style and no indication of notability. Also written as if it may be a copyvio. The PROD-tag was removed because these are "not valid reasons" for deleting the article, suggesting that Shyamsunder (talk · contribs) has never read Wikipedia:Notability, which is a pity. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 11:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator would do well to read WP:Notability before suggesting that others might need to. The gbooks link above gives significant coverage. If there are concerns about copyvio, then identify the problem and fix it, mark it for G12 if it qualifies or take it up to the copyvio noticeboard. If there are concerns of style then clean it up or tag it. —SpacemanSpiff 11:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As should be obvious, I recommended Shyamsunder (talk · contribs) to read our notability policy since he clearly believes that being non-notable is not a "valid reason" to delete an article. Those were his words. ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 11:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As should be obvious, I recommend you to read our notability policy and understand when a topic is not notable, especially when the gbooks and gscholar links are spoon-fed with the nomination. —SpacemanSpiff 12:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're still not reading what I wrote. Being non-notable is a valid reason for deletion. Official. If Shyasmunder disagreed with my assessment that the article was non-notable, then he should have said so. He should not have said that non-notability was invalid grounds for deletion. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 12:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's look at the reasons given for the nomination, shall we. "Unreferenced": Not true. It does have references. And a simple Google search will produce many more. "No indication of notability": It's a palace; of course it's notable. Why on earth shouldn't it be? "Poor style": Not particularly, and in any case this is not a reason for deletion. It may just need rewriting. This is articles for deletion, not articles for cleanup. "Written as if it may be a copyvio": Not particularly. And even if it is, that doesn't mean it is a copyvio. And even if it is a copyvio it should just be reduced to a stub, not deleted (see notability above). May I endorse the suggestion that the nominator reads (or rereads) the notability and deletion policies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have visited the palace. it doesnt really look like what you would expect a palace to be. but, the place like any other palace is notable. --CarTick (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have visited the palace. This almost calls for a new addition to WP:ATA, maybe WP:IVEBEENTHERE or something? I've visited the Subway branch in Sisters, Oregon, so that's notable too I guess? ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the reason why voted "keep" was explained in my third sentence. you can ignore the first two sentences if you dont like them. --CarTick (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'm intrigued as to why you intentionally typed out two sentences which you knew to be irrelevant. Or, as I guess I should say, Penguins are exciting. I like tea. In that case, I'm intrigued as to why you intentionally typed out two sentences which you knew to be irrelevant. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 19:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ha ha ha. :) you are kidding. right? --CarTick (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The travel book "South India" published by Lonely Planet says that it is "the largest wooden palace complex in Asia" which, itself, makes the palace worthy of an article.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 05:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The palace has fairly obvious historical and cultural significance. Even given the vagaries of transliteration, a Google Scholar search shows that the palace has been the subject of serious academic works. The prose and references could be improved; show me an article this isn't true for. It seems reasonably neutral nevertheless and free from axegrinding or promotionalism. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of references both in the article and elsewhere. Clearly passes our notability requirements. Generally palaces do, because palaces tell us a lot about their builders and inhabitants. --NellieBly (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a historically significant place with lots and of academic coverage. As a prominent tourist destination (oh yes, i have been there and it is even more exciting than penguins and tea) it has received continuous news coverage.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-A Google search for Padmanabhapuram palace returns 152,000 hits. A Google Books search returns 1,490 hits. Besides, there are also articles in Tamil and Malayalam. Being an inclusionist, I feel that bad quality of prose is not reason enough for deletion. And unless copyvio is proved, the article cannot be tagged.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 04:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources proves its notability. A well-written and well-referenced article though there is some scope for improvement which is true for any other article on wikipedia.Shyamsunder (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2011 (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.