Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kukutesvara Siva 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. Consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Kukutesvara Siva Temple

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article appears to be a academic report on a *private* temple. Fails WP:GNG apart from this though. Only link is basically an official form saying that the building exits - not a claim to notability.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  01:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC) See my comment below.
 * This appears to have the same problem, although I don't know how to add it to this AfD (or if I even should).  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  01:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails notability. Not an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what it is.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See this discussion on my talk. Apperently some students took official reports and tried to wikify them?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  15:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (see below for rethink) - had a good search but nothing except blogs and a slide-show. Fails Notability, minor temple. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - there are a bunch of these articles. While they most certainly need cleanup, I am loath to say delete. Surely for temples this old, there must be more documentation. Lady  of  Shalott  00:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  00:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very poorly-written article, but this temple's age (12th–13th century) makes it a definite keep. If it was in Britain, for example, the age would automatically make it a Grade I listed building, which would make it automatically notable for us. The fact it's in India and has less coverage does not make it any less notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment "If it was in Britain, for example, the age would automatically make it a Grade I listed building". No it wouldn't. See here. And it isn't in Britain.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would most certainly be listed ("All buildings erected before 1700 "which contain a significant proportion of their original fabric" will be listed") and almost all buildings of this age are indeed Grade I. You'd be hard-pressed to find one that isn't unless it's been substantially altered. As to not being in Britain, I know; I was merely using this as an illustration of how historic buildings of this age are generally considered notable (I should have thought that was actually fairly obvious). We do not apply different standards of notability to different countries, as this would be systemic bias. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I will hold my hand up to the systemic bias. But the article makes it pretty clear that it's a minor buliding ("3.80 metres"), that the fabric of the temple has been modified over the years ("of modern construction") and that it's dating is not clear(no "precise date" given). I can assure you that this building would not be an "automatic" Grade I.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that still existing as an example of architecture of that age should be in itself a sign of notability. What does what country it's in have to do with anything, TigerBoy? Lady  of  Shalott  12:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep We have a couple of books that talk about this (one was already used as a source, just that it wasn't listed properly), the other is available in many libraries and while it doesn't provide significant info, it still talks about (briefly) the period of construction, dynasty and architectural style. Given the age of the temple (modern construction is only parts of it -- as is the case with many places of worship ransacked in religious conflict or affected by the vagaries of weather over more than a thousand years), I'd expect there to be more Oriya language sources. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article was very badly-written with poor evidence (hence my earlier delete view), much better and more substantial now, with proper references. In context of Bhubaneswar "city of temples", we certainly want good coverage of the ancient cultural, architectural and religious artefacts in East India (and Kukutesvara is probably notable for all those reasons). The sensible choices open to us are to keep the article or to merge it into a list of temples of Bhubaneswar (there's a table listing the main temples already - but each one has a blue link). A list containing 600 temple descriptions with photos and references would be VERY long, so a separate article per temple does seem best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing/switching !votes/whatever you want to call it per Chiswick Chap's work. Excellent job by him, and I can no longer support this articles deletion.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  10:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per addition of sources to article, the availability of sources, and the fact that the nominator has withdrawn the nomination to delete. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2011 (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.