Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhagavadh Vinayaga Temple, Kumbakonam


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Bhagavadh Vinayaga Temple, Kumbakonam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local temple with no claim for notability. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Now more links on the pujas and festivals of the temple are added. Information culled out from the inscription of 1692 C.E. is added. These are given with links. I will try to get more information in due course. Hope my links would be accepted. Regards. --B Jambulingam (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The speciality of Navagraha Vinayaka which is found in the temple is added with link. Some other links are also added. Regards. --B Jambulingam (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - this AfD nomination took place less than an hour after the article was created - which scarcely allows for an adequate WP:BEFORE, given the language considerations. There are quite a lot of sources / references, mostly in Tamil, but also a couple in English which are good enough IMO, one of which was already present when the article was marked for AfD. There may well be more, not necessarily in English. This new editor has recently made numerous AfD nominations, several of which, like this one, are too hasty, in my view. I'll give my !vote on the actual nomination below. Is there such a thing as a procedural keep for a too-early nomination? Ingratis (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - well sourced, for an Indian temple. The newspaper refs are mostly to Dinamani, which is apparently a reputable Tamil newspaper. There is more information that cd be added in the English sources which goes to notability, and on the basis of how much is available online I don't doubt that more can be found in Indian printed sources. Articles are not against a clock. Ingratis (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Temple appears to date from 1692 C.E. or before, i.e. before country existed of most probable !voters here. --Doncram (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: C.E. denotes Common Era. This is for information please. --B Jambulingam (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sources already exist on the page to demonstrate notability and a cursory google search shows there should be quite a few more non-English sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.