Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Kalyan 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. L Faraone  01:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Shri Kalyan Temple

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Merge with Rajasthan Tourism or delete Benedictdilton (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Very old temple likely to have a long history and plenty of non-English sources. Presumption of these sources and its history pushes me to keep this stub. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment is probably a better search term. The current article is a mess, with one sentence just saying where it is, and the other two presenting an origin myth as fact. However, the temple has verifiably been an "important" pilgrimage centre (with an associated mela) since at least the 19th century, and non-English language sources would probably go further back. The problem is that most of these sources (at least among reliable English language ones easily findable on a Google search) are mere mentions, with little information beyond its being in Diggi, Rajasthan (which, despite not currently having an article, almost certainly meets NPLACE) and, sometimes, that it is Vaishnava. This source, though, suggests that the temple was significantly rebuilt sometime in the 1990s to disguise the fact that a reputed Muslim pir buried within the temple area had also previously been worshipped on the site (and other sources only available on Google as snippets seem to confirm this) - which makes me wonder if any sources have been quietly "lost" (or at least not reproduced online). Unless and until we can get more details about the temple than would be expected in an article about Diggi, it might be an idea to write that article and redirect this one there. PWilkinson (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  01:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:32, 18 June 2013 (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.