Talk:Nadigar Sangam

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Name

Name has not been officially or legally changed to Nadigar Sangam.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but here on Wikipedia we only use commonly recognizable names (WP:OFFICIAL). For example, you can see Bangalore. Its name is officially Bengaluru but the title would not be changed until it is commonly accepted by the majority. - Nirinsanity (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Nadigar Sangam election

I think this section should be created into a new article. It is too large and notable enough as an event. 173.33.180.117 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh god no. there is not enough sourcing to establish the org itself is notable. just remove the poorly sourced and insider trivia and it will be fine. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? It was covered quite adequately in the media. It definitely passes WP:NOTABILITY. The Nadigar Sangam has a lot of good sources as well that prove it's existence. 173.33.180.117 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added an undue weight tag and NPOV tag. To reduce weight, it should be split. I don't see anything that dampens the article's point of view. So far, everything stated are facts and not opinion. 173.33.180.117 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Controversies related to Vishwaroopam has it's own article why not 2015 Nadigar Sangam election? I hope a registered user could make this move. 173.33.180.117 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tags, not because we should spew more words on a nothing, but because a nothing was taking up too much floor space where it was. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too feel it isn't notable enough to deserve its own article. It does not look consistent when the 2015 election has its own page but the previous elections don't. - Nirinsanity (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the other elections did not have any media coverage (i.e. were not notable) like the 2015 election. It's rather an article for series of related events, rather than just an article for an election. - 173.33.180.117 (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you call the topic a 'nothing', TheRedPenOfDoom? - 173.33.180.117 (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a typical internecine fooferla that while EARTH SHATTERINGLY IMPORTANT to those involved, no one else cares about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]