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. Been up 4 weeks and after 3 weeks worth of relisting I don't think discussion's gonna get any better than this, I couldn't see this ever being deleted just because a lack of attention so the obvious outcome is NC. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maheswaram Temple[edit]

Maheswaram Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was prodded a few days ago, which was endorsed by clpo13 (which I didn't even know you could do). It was removed without reason today. Prodded for "No references for notability in current article. News provides zero, as does Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam, or JSTOR. It exists, but nothing to show it's notable." The work that has been done since the prod tag was added is unencylopedic in tone and adds nothing to show why this structure is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As I am from chenkal village I know the existence of Maheswaram Sri Sivaparvathi Temple. Hence I could say with 100% Guarantee that this article named Maheswaram Temple is 100% genuine. Hence I request you not to delete this article- Sivapriya T S 117.199.5.59 (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fact that it exists is not an argument for notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only if this gets familiar attention and is thus improved but if not simply delete for now until that can happen as this will familiar attention as soon as possible. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All of the English-language sources seem to be promotional tourist stuff. One could argue that such mentions would correlate with notability, but I think more would be good. The print sources could be substantive, but I can't guess from the titles. I'm not sure if it's relevant to English Wikipedia, but I would have to assume that most of the useful sources about this would be in non-English sources.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know this temple personally and i am a devotee of Maheswaram Sri sivaparvati Temple. This temple is constructed only using Krishna Stone and wood. This is a famous temple for Sivaparvati in South Kerala. I request you to terminate the steps to delete this article as this is genuine.- Arun Manohar MG

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.