Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilimarathukavu Temple

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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kilimarathukavu Temple

Kilimarathukavu Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced temple failing WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, probably to a list-article of temples. The article asserts the temple is thousands of years old; if that is true the place would be significant on its own, even as a geographical feature. I have seen multiple AFDs in recent months about other single temples in India. Deleting them separately is not the way forward to build appropriate coverage in Wikipedia. What is needed is a list-article, or multiple list-articles, to which marginally-notable temple articles can be redirected, at least temporarily unless or until sufficient sourced info becomes available to justify a standalone article. Here there is a pic but little other information, not more than can be covered comfortably in a List of temples in Kerala (or similarly named). There are a number of temples covered in and its subcategories; each can have a row with pic and short info about them, in a table in a list-article. Certainly the list-topic would be valid. I'm willing to start such a list-article, but it would be better if someone local or otherwise interested could help shape it (should it be just about Hindu ones, separate from Jain, other ones? or is a narrower geographic focus covering all types of temples better?). Is anyone else willing to help? Help build, not destroy. :) --doncram 21:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, complaints about notability of 4 temples currently show at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism.

If we have a reference that justifies the thousands of year old creation then we can simply keep the article. If not, I don't agree with redirecting it to List of Hindu temples in Kerala. The list should include only blue linked articles per WP:NLIST. There is no end to number of temples in India and we are not directory or travel guide to facilitate such a list. The state of Maharashtra has a minimum 1743 illegal shrines and legal ones would be abundantly more. There is no reliable reference which will quantify the number for us and its obvious why no one will ever bother to count them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking to List of Hindu temples in Kerala, an existing list-article that mostly has bluelinks. I assume you mean that the temple is a Hindu one (not obvious to me). A list-article can include non-bluelinked articles, per wp:NLIST. It is good practice to include redlink items too, at least when sources support the items' importance. Here we do have an assertion of the temple's importance, although it is not properly sourced, and we have a photograph (which is a kind of source itself), and I have added an external link to this non-English video on Youtube about an event there. It is thin, but I think there's enough reason to have a table row about this temple in the list-article. --doncram 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also thank you for link to news article about demolition of illegal shrines. If there were 1743 temples, it would be fine to list them. Note Wikipedia has a list of 85,000 historic sites in the United States. I'd like to know how many temples there are likely to be, though. Does "shrine" = "temple"? In U.S., there are roadside memorials often set up where a fatal car accident happened, which could be termed "shrines" and which are no doubt technically illegal. But such "shrines" have little to do with temples or churches that have congregations and worship programs and staff and so on. --doncram 23:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what does "Sreekovil" or "main Sreekovil" mean? The term is used in other Wikipedia articles, but I don't see it defined anywhere. --doncram 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is this Facebook page about it found by searching on just the term "Kilimarathukavu".

• The facebook page has multiple pictures of the temple and also photos of Malayam language papers (perhaps newspaper articles about the temple?) which may be useable sources.
• There is http://malayalam.kadakkalamma.org/en/art_rituals.html this source about festivals] mentioning one of 3 "pageants" is starting at Kilimarathukavu.
• The search also turns up

"Kilimarathukavu Sivaparvathi Temple" which appears to me to possibly be the same place.

Anyhow, searching on sources having exact phrase "Kilimarathukavu Temple" is too limited. Try:

• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and
• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And I don't know how to search in Malayam, which probably has more coverage, or in Hindi. --doncram 23:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree on including red-links in lists. As said before, we can simply keep the article after the claimed notability points are verified and then en-list it. Until then they are dubious and simply false. The point in providing that ref about illegal shrine/temples was to simply tell that these temples are plenty much in India. Unlike a registering authority, like for the long list of US buildings you mentioned, there is no authority in India that keeps track of registering temples. Of course, if the temple has a trust formed then that will be registered. They will also pay taxes to concerned government bodies. But I am not sure there exists any unified body just to track temples. @SpacemanSpiff: Have you got any idea of this? Also, mere existence, through photos and facebook pages, do not make things notable and you know that. Being age-old is not necessarily a point of notability too. That’s something which was the consensus of this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. George's Forane Church.
Sreekovil means Garbhagriha. There is a redirect to it. I don't speak/read Malayalam either. Hence pinging others who might help to translate and look for sources in Indic languages. @Tachs and Salih: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalm word Sreekovil means Garbhagriha or sanctum sanctorum; Kovil means temple. The words are dravidian and pronounced with minor variations in different parts of South India.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmadhyaksha, HR&CE for Tamil Nadu (except Thillai Nataraja Temple, Chidambaram) and Devaswom boards in Kerala. —SpacemanSpiff 07:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This website thekeralatemples.com lists a total of 1673 temples in Kerala and that’s not all inclusive. There is facility for you to submit information about some temples you know. Am not sure how they verify the submitted info and how the site falls in our WP:RS criteria. We currently have around 370+ article in Category:Hindu temples in Kerala by district. I wonder if the list gets populated to include more ~1300 names of possibly non-notable temples, the list would also tend to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE.§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:54, 13 June 2016 (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.