Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuttiyattu paradevada 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   moving to incubator. Abecedare (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Kuttiyattu paradevada temple

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is nothing to be found on this temple (see this search, and feel free to click on "Books" or "News"), and not a single reference is provided to even verify basic facts about this temple. Drmies (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Malayalam string search for "Paradevada Kovil" returns some links But as "Paradevatha" is a popular deity and has a lot of temples dedicated for her, there is nothing to source this particular one. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While the temple looks pretty good and the 600 year history seems to hint at notability, I'm unable to find anything in RS to show notability or even verify content. In the absence of any vernacular sources being unearthed, this should be deleted. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The temple is clearly notable - any 600 year old building, including places of worship, would be and deserve a place on Wikipedia. Just because we are unable to find verifiable sources should not automatically register an article for deletion. There might be vernacular sources or published material that is difficult to find on Google. Given the low Wikipedia editor base in India it is important we keep stubs like this open for an extended period of time to encourage new editors to join in and contribute., but unless we expand the coverage of Indian Wikipedia significantly, new users would have less incentive to join and start making edits. I think it is essential that this article (and articles like it) be kept and not deleted. Another plus in favour of this article is the included image, a rarity for little known Indian POIs. Pranay Da Spyder (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the burden of verifiability continues to exist. Without a single reliable source the claim of 600 years old has to be taken on faith, and that's not how encyclopedias are supposed to work. BTW, I dispute the notion that we have a low editor base in India--from the coverage of Indian towns, clans, temples, etc. it seems we have a lot of them. It's not up to "us" (whoever that may be) to expand coverage--it's up to editors to provide it, with the sources in hand. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree there is difficulty in verifying content (and therefore notability) - but records pertaining to Indian Historical Sites are hard to come by and not all are published online. This temple, if at all notable, is bound to be on the Archaeological Survey of India's register of centrally protected monuments. If that is the case then this article must be retained. Unfortunately the register (and all its derivatives) come in paper copies only, although the information itself is all within the public domain. For this very reason, it is particularly important that articles pertaining to Indian History be retained - and if verifiable information is not readily available, then marked as stubs or with various tags as this article has been. Wikipedia is a collective encyclopedia for all countries and bearing in mind the different stages of development of various countries, we should not indiscriminately apply the same verifiability principles we apply to articles on Western Europe or the US, to articles on India or Mozambique. Pranay Da Spyder (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The 600 year old claim is just that - a "claim". A lot of temples claim antiquity. Verifiability in the form of epigraphical and literary sources has to be there to backup the claim. If the temple really dates back to 14th century, there will be mentions in bhakti literature of that era. the burden of proof lies with the article creator.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree completely with that assertion - the burden of proof lies on the community. The article creator has done a good job of adding to the ever-growing list of topics that need attention, especially from an Indian POV. That said, I take responsibility for this article and for compiling a list of verifiable sources as I am certainly not happy with how it looks in its current form. I'd appreciate if you could give me 2 weeks to find this information and if I cant find much, or if I find conflicting data, then I'd be happy to go forward and delete this article as you suggest. For now though, we should keep it until more thorough research has been done (that I just volunteered for). Thanks. Pranay Da Spyder (talk)
 * Thats great. There are a few ways how this can be done. Probably this can be userfied (making it a subpage of your userpage) in your userspace. (even if it is deleted now, it can be undeleted after you have finished with it and it can be moved to articlespace). --Sodabottle (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry but I'm a novice when it comes to Wikipedia syntax - so if by 'creating a subpage on my userpage' you mean copy paste the text etc, then wouldn't that mean that if I create this same article again later then it would have a new history? If that is the case then I'd rather we keep this article as it is until 30th April and delete it if I haven't updated it by then and/or I move it to my userpage then (rather than now). What do you think? Pranay Da Spyder (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * that too could work. but you will have to work it out the specifics of what to do with this AfD, with the nominator (drmies) --Sodabottle (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

<--OK, here's what we can do: we can ask Spiff! He is not only a Spaceman, but also an administrator with an uncommon amount of good sense. I'm not on a crusade against temples--if you can userfy this or otherwise improve it, that would be jes fine with me. If Spiff wants to, for instance, delete this and userfy it right now, that's fine, but maybe he has a better idea. Good luck working on it, Spyder. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2010 (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.