Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poochandi

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 Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poochandi

This confused entry is not sure whether it wants to be a wiktionary entry or an entry for a Tamil song that seems to have gained some sort of cult status on YouTube. Either way, there are no references to notability. My speedy deletion request was denied hence I am opening it up for debate as to whether it's a keeper or not. LittleOldMe (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is notable and included in a popular song. Until it can all be sorted out, best not to delete either. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a couple of sources found by a Latin alphabet Google News search that seem to confirm that this is an equivalent of the bogey man. Searching in Tamil comes up with more hits but, beautiful though it is, the Tamil script is totally incomprehensible to me. I know that we have plenty of Tamil editors here, so if anyone reading this can read the language could you please check whether there are any good sources there? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not of much significance. Every Dravidian languages might have such slang/words. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the same search that Phil performed. Given that such a search is not likely to produce all the possible results, I'm staying on the safe side. And look at this strange hit. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: slang term, wiktionary entry. JamesBurns (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least the first part seems to be an authentic bogeyman [1] Nerfari (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not appropriate for English wikipedia. But, may be, just may be for Tamil wikipedia. most suitable for Tamil wiktionary, if exists. --Docku: What's up? 17:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to delete all the other "non-English" bogeymen too? Nerfari (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not if they are notable in context with English language. --Docku: What's up? 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in notability guidelines that says subjects have to be notable "in context with English language". The word "English" in "English Wikipedia" simply means that it is written in English, not that it's only about the English-speaking world. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this belongs in wiktionary. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary entry; inappropriate here. To keep this article it is not sufficient to find sources that verify its meaning (which seems possible). Firstly, we need to be clear if we are talking about just the word poochandi as a synonymn of boogeyman, or the concept of pochandi in Tamil culture. If the former, then the article belongs on Tamil wikipedia, with an interwiki link added to the boogeyman page. If the latter, we need sources that discuss the origins of the concept, the etymology of the term, and its linguistic and cultural significance. Such sources seem to be unavailable in English, and we perhaps need the help of Tamil speaking wikipedians to extend the search; I will reconsider my vote if such sources are found. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2009 (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.