Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sivasailam 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 Keep as this seems to be clear (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sivasailam Temple

Sivasailam 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)

This article does not have sources to establish notability. @Rahuljeswin: You contested the proposed deletion with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I proposed deletion after looking for potential sources that demonstrate notability but failing to find any. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC) See below. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it's this temple: [1]. Notable Shiva lingam. Hindu temple articles, in fact, India in general, needs editors, improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory, the article you point to appears to be discussing Netroddharakaswami Temple in the village of Panaiyapuram in Villupuram district. The temple the subject of this AFD is in Sivasailam village in Tirunelveli district. So I disagree that it is the same one. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - is this keepable per WP:GEOFEAT clause #1. It seems old (1300 years), large and unique enough to be of significant national and/or cultural heritage. We would just need one source saying it has been designated as such. Unfortunately, most such sources would not be in English. E.M.Gregory's source was a good find in that the temple has at least come to the attention of the Indian national government and has significant importance to the locals. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a difficult item to locate on the web, as Tamil is quite poorly supported and many of the documents seem to be scanned as images. However, the temple's website is partly in English: we could do with a Tamil speaker to help here. The geographical website OneFiveNineExploreIndia confirms the existence of the temple at Sivisailam village, and that it is called Paramakalyani Sailapathi Temple, Kadayam Turunelveli (=Tirunelveli District), Tamil Nadu. Wikimapia agrees on the location. Our article on Alwarkurichi town nearby actually has a description of the temple, which it calls "Paramakalyani Samedha Sivasailapathi". So perhaps the article needs its title changed, but it seems undoubtedly notable as a genuine place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravanasamudram: Temples seems a reliable source.

Additional link with photographs: TripAdvisor Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: some of the links you've provided above gives us evidence that the temple exists. But how does that address the question of notability? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing whether it was a real place, as such are considered notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that if a temple merely exists it is automatically notable? I think it requires more than that, such as what is described in WP:GEOFEAT. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At 1300 years old it must be a notable feature, as the few sources in English (here's one more) at least indicate. Like other editors, I strongly suspect most of the sources are in Tamil, and we should enlist a Tamil speaker for assistance on this, as already stated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if the temple is in fact 1300 years old. But our article doesn't make any claim about the temple being 1300 years old. The only time that the number 1300 has been mentioned so far is in the link provided by E.M.Gregory. But as I pointed out, that news article is talking about a different temple in a different district. I agree we need some assistance from a Tamil speaker, because there is very little to help us in English. The latest PDF you've linked to has a one sentence mention in a list of 42 "other important places". Again, there is no mention about how old it is or why it is "an important place". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously beneficial to have as article, although with tags. The present company doesn't have great sources but all believe it exists and is old and surely is covered in other language sources. We know it is notable with probability 99.9% (remote possibility this is a fraud?). Agree that ancient (500 years plus?) temples are effectively geographic features. Avoid western bias/arrogance.--doncram 16:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but we may have to stub it down some as little of what is there is based on reliable sources as far as I can tell (though the author may have translated form reliable Tamil sources). The temple is mentioned briefly in Lists of the Antiquarian Remains in the Presidency of Madras, Volume 1 (1882) ("an old Siva temple of large size, well sculptured and containing inscriptions") and google snippets shows brief mention as a "famous temple" in Madras District Gazetteers: Tirunelveli District ( 2 v.) and mention of the inscriptions in Early South Indian temple architecture: study of Tiruvāliśvaram inscriptions. These are enough to establish that the temple is not some new construction or hoax and in the best tradition of expanding our geographic coverage, we can hope that Tamil sources can be produced in time. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am pleased to change my vote to keep thanks to the effort of 24.151.10.165 to actually find some reliable evidence. The first link provided shows us that this temple is at least 130 years old. That for me is enough to make it worthwhile writing about. Just to be clear, this had absolutely nothing to do with "western bias/arrogance". I merely wanted to see actual evidence instead of bare assertions of 99% confidence. IP 24.151 is also correct in saying that the next task is to stub this down and make it legible. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:09, 1 February 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.