Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Navaladi Karuppannaswami 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 speedy delete G12. Deleted by The JPS (non-admin closure). — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sri Navaladi Karuppannaswami Temple

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unsourced article, notability is questionable, reads like an advert, much of the article is close paraphrasing or direct copy of this Ryan Vesey  Review me!  21:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete or Delete, without prejudice to re-creation Appears to be a copyvio of.


 * Deletion is also because of WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and WP:V. The "General information" section falls into the WP:NOTTRAVEL category.  Just in general there is a lack of information, for example, being told "It is also said..." without a source is a rumor.  The statement, "The Chellandiamman shrine is very popular" is unsourced and vague (not quantified).  The "History" section has no dates.


 * This source asserts that the temple is 2000 years old, people come from all over the world to visit, and "The temple is noted for its architectural and sculptural beauty," where these statements are indications of notability, and if they can be sourced in reliable secondary sources re-creation of this article is to be encouraged, so the Delete should be marked as without prejudice to recreation. I found this link to be relevant.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete G12 as a word-for-word copy of this source already mentioned by Ryan Vesey and Unscintillating. The temple looks otherwise notable, so I agree with Unscintillating that there should be no prejudice against recreation. I've tagged the page for speedy deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 07:04, 10 June 2012 (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.