Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maheswaram Temple (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete.  JGHowes   talk  13:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Maheswaram Temple
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very touristy, nearly incomprehensible, I believe it'd need a full rewrite to become a decent article at this point. Just a tangled mess in general. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Many of the references are unreliable, primary sources, or non-references, including YouTube, Google Maps, Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, videos, and tourist brochures. Much of the article is incomprehensible and contains marketing buzzspeak.  The history is unverified and appears to be mythological.
 * There was a previous AFD four years ago which was closed as No Consensus, basically due to a lack of participation. The article has not improved substantially in four years even if more questionable sources have been added.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Editor does not appear to understand wikipedia policy either. They are protesting the deletion on their talk page. Linking here for note. User_talk:Arunmanoharmg --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Extra note: I just realised the editor may actually be engaging in paid editing. See my note here -- MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. I actually think there's an outside chance that this is a notable topic. The lingam received some attention (see here from the Times of India). Assuming in good faith that at least one or two of the poorly-formatted print sources referenced in the current article actually has something germane to say about the temple in general (but see below), there's probably enough to build a legitimate article. What we have here, however, isn't it, and isn't salvageable. It conflates mythology and doctrine with history, is so dubiously referenced as to render any of the text questionable, and has significant passages that are on the whole barely comprehensible. Also, I believe that at least some of the print sources are being used in ways that do not support the provided claims; Glimpses of Architecture in Kerala Temples and Palaces is available via Google's frustrating Snippet View, but that's enough to determine that the word "Maheswaram" does not appear in the text; I suspect the book actually describes an architectural style, which is then attributed to this temple here via original research. And so for those several reasons, even if the temple is a notable topic, this article is so badly non-compliant that we're better off without it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2019 (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.