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. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manissery[edit]

Manissery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete as per WP:NOTE. A small town famous for a movie shooting (unreferenced) can not deserve to have a standalone article on WP. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Places (at least towns) are notable irrespective of size. See WP:OUTCOMES. I understand that there may not be much to write, but we keep these articles. Xymmax (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All towns, villages, and municipalities are notable. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and the nom should consider withdrawing this. I will assume that he was acting in good faith, but he seems to have nominated some fairly valid articles for deletion, such as Dictum de omni and Bango (cannabis).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - h i s, with due respect to your activity I have to say you are not playing with good faith. Just go and see what I wrote just few min back at the entry of your loving article. You became desperate and commenting keep wherever you are finding it suitable. Unfortunately there are some articles (nominated by me) where you can easily place a delete but you didn't. Moreover, you tried to mislead people's concentration by providing wrong information that I have nominated Bango (cannabis) for deletion which is not true. I didn't expect this behavior from the person who receive AfD Burnstar as the first Wikipedian. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologise about the bango (cannabis) error.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I do also apologize as I found you at one of my nominations voting for deletion which actually proved me wrong to some extent. Let's forget everything and SMILE. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article would be better with improvements, but it meets notability as a place. matt91486 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per Xymmax and Tim Q. Wells. BWH76 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as this alleged town has no entry in the 2001 Census of India, is entirely unreferenced, and is believed to constitute a hoax. John254 00:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Additionally, note that a search for "Manissery" with the "Population Finder" dialog on the current Census of India website likewise produces no results, which supports the contention that this supposed town does not exist. John254 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several references to a Manissery in Kerala on Google here, and several more if the spelling is altered to "Manisseri." I haven't listed those since I'm not absolutely certain it's the same thing. I do, however, see references to phone codes for Manissery and address listing including it. I find nothing surprising about a small town not receiving its own census listing - presumably those people were counted as a part of a larger unit. Is the census data the only reason you think it's a hoax? Xymmax (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Xymmax above, I see no reason to believe it is a hoax. And seeing as it is not a hoax, it has automatic notability. SorryGuy  Talk  21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]