Talk:Maniyoor

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maniyoor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208044522/http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Village_Directory/Population_data/Population_5000_and_Above.aspx to http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Village_Directory/Population_data/Population_5000_and_Above.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Maniyoor Usthad

Hi, I removed the majority of the article a few minutes ago because it was an uncited interlude about some sort of local figure or something that wasn't formatted properly and wasn't written coherently enough to be fixed. It looked like it was trying to be formatted like an article of its own for someone named Maniyoor Usthad or Maniyoor Abdul Khader Qasimi or something but it was trying to do it inside of another article (??). I saw this a while back and had just left it to see if someone else would do something with it, but now it's been a few months and it is seemingly just being left that way. It seemed better to me to cut it than to wait for someone to fix it. Maybe I'm stepping out of line here, but I didn't think dropping a note here on the talk page or tagging it was going to do the trick because this is such a minor article that nobody would ever see it. As it stands, I'm leaving this note on the talk page because anybody who sees that I nuked half the article and is upset about that _will_ actually be looking here.

Most of it arrives here, and it was supplemented a couple months later with even more questionable content in this diff, which replaces an already confusing chunk of text from the first edit with just the letter "k," talks about the kind of visitors this guy is getting these days, and informs us that he is "famous."

Okay, here's the point, to anyone mad at me deleting that part of the article:

1. the content was uncited
2. it doesn't seem the content ever _could_ be cited, because all of the Google hits I could get for either of the two names that these two Wikipedians provided for this man are YouTube videos of him preaching or something.
3. it doesn't seem to be terribly relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia
4. even assuming that it is relevant and could feasibly be cited, it should either be its own article or not be formatted and written like its own article (as it is, with those separate-article-esque subheadings, etc.)
5. in any case it would need to be entirely rewritten because as it stood it was practically unreadable
6. any rewrite attempting to fix the above issues could not be done in place but would need to be done again from scratch because the info was, once again, uncited and dubious

All of this taken together gives me the impression that it was written by people from the area who know some guy in Maniyoor named either Maniyoor Usthad or Maniyoor Abdul Khader Qasimi and they're writing based on their own first- or second-hand knowledge of him which is in its own right not okay.

So I nuked that part.

Maybe this isn't even that controversial a move; I don't know.

Dysmys (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)