Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Madukkarai Wall


 * 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.  Wifione  Message 11:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Madukkarai Wall

 * – ( View AfD View log )

References are all from archive.org, or map references. No indication of notability. Σ Α Π Φ (Sapph) Talk 15:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Very few sources mentioning it. Looks like an unimportant landmark. Since this wall supposedly ends at the Meenakshi Amman Temple it can be merged into that article. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, article is terrible, but any structure from that date has some historical interest in and of itself. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep article seems like it has potential it just needs to be rewriten. TheRico152 (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep article is of interest; it may be notable simply by being a place; but in addition it is notable for being an antique structure (and a very large one); its border deity temples with ancient statuary make it notable as both religious and art history subjects; and finally, the modern political issues around it would also make it notable if there are references for that. It is not part of the Meenaksi Amman Temple just because the very long structure happens to end there, so while links to and from that article would be in order, a merge would not (other than as a last resort, but it still wouldn't be right). The fact that the article was not written by a native English speaker is not a reason for deletion; nor is the likely fact that most of the sources are in the Tamil language. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tidied up the article, written a lead-in and done some copy-editing. There is interesting history here, and the historic quotes and citations are entirely appropriate. The modern concern about damage to the wall needs a source but is only one line in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 13 December 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.