Muthukrishnaperi: Cannot find any mention of the village in any of the Indian 2011 census tables nor any other information on google demonstrating WP:GNG .  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 07:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The content provided appears to be a description of a village, including information about local employment, facilities, climate, pollution levels, and religious practices.  To determine whether to keep or delete such content on Wikipedia, we in good faiyth must also consider its compliance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and the guideline for notability of geographic features (WP:NGEO).  To meet WP:GNG , the subject must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  For WP:NGEO, the village would need to be notable either through historical, cultural, economic significance, or by being the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from reliable and independent sources.  If the village (which has to exist) has not been mentioned in any reliable sources, such as government records like the Indian census, or if there is no other verifiable information available from independent sources, it likely faile to meet Wikipedia's notability standards.  Lacking in sources et al.  Cray04 ( talk ) 12:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes WP:NGEO , as a populated, legally recognised place.  The village does exist but the article was a mess and had a number of errors.  Sources are thin on the ground but there is a polling station there, and this court document , and this newspaper article that reference the village.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, we need some of our WP:NGEO folks in here as there is a disagreement over whether or not this subject meets this standard.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to the sources above there's a newspaper report in The Madras Weekly Mail of 14 September 1899 on a court case involving the burning and looting of dwellings in this village in what seems to be an ethnic or religious dispute.  Link here: [2] .  It's a populated place, maps show it to be a distinct village, there's road signs on the main road and a high school.  It's existence is verified and it can be kept under WP:GEOLAND .  Rupples ( talk ) 03:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Map shows village is exist, it can be kept under WP:GEOLAND .  2400:9700:113:1547:45B5:4F14:BC2E:F828 ( talk ) 02:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Muthukrishnaperi is not a 2011 census village; it appears to be included in Kaluneerkulam , a revenue village comprising four distinct settlements, but I've only ascertained this from maps.  Being a census village is not a strict requirement under WP:NPLACE.  Rupples ( talk ) 05:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:49, 20 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus