Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanadikavu Shree Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swamy 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Kanadikavu Shree Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swamy temple

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has been declined from draft space three times, and now created in main-space as an apparent end-run around AfC. The reason to delete is basically the reasons stated in the draft declines: poor sourcing (YouTube, links to a map site, a reference to another wikipedia article, etc), and in general, no indication this meets WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. It appears obviously notable, so I can see how newish editor(s) could get frustrated with statements that "in general, no indication this meets WP:GNG" (in this AFD nomination) and bland boilerplate denials at AFC that "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article", etc.  It is estimated to be 700 years old, its photos show pretty obvious age/elaborateness/importance, it is subject of an annual three-day festival that gets mention in reputable source(s), etc.  Seems like there is an editorial process failure going on, a combination of failure to communicate and, yes, newish editor(s) not having all the ability or willingness to comply with referencing standards that other wikipedia editors are trying to insist upon.  I dunno, how about acknowledging that it really does meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, as a starter.  Is there some way to enlist help of experienced editors on Sri Lanka topics?  Some way to really correspond with the author(s)?  Otherwise I don't know how the AFC type editors should proceed, but bringing the failure of process to AFD doesn't seem great to me. --Doncram (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that this is likely notable, but the current article is a mess and doesn't belong in mainspace. I'd be happy with moving this back to draft space, where it can continue to be developed into a proper encyclopedia article with solid sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think one of the problems here, which occurs in articles about many parts of the world but particularly in those about South Asia, is that article creators insist in including every possible honorific in the title rather than just stick to what is actually the name. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article obviously needs work, but the topic is clearly notable. AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 13 May 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.