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. By now, I see a somewhat narrow consensus to delete this article given that sources to verify notability has not bein found. → Call me Hahc21 05:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pandavarkavu[edit]

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

PROD removed. Unsourced article with barely any content. Just enough that I'm not going for A1 or A3, and as a place doesn't meet A7. No indication of notability. Google-fu does not suggest it meets WP:GNG. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator replied to the deletion notification on their talk page. In the interests of making sure that their argument is represented, I'm copypasting it here:

i am not particular about any page in Wikipedia. i well aware that anything can be reverted in Wikipedia forgetting the effort behind the creation of a page. then about pandavarkavu. it is a temple in Kerala connected with the history of India and the old book mahabharata. this page contains enough photos, the way to this destination and details about its history. even then if you feel that it is an insignificant information you can delete it. but dont think that you are the last word. world is so large and the time is very wast. somebody somewhere and at one time this will come out.--Dvellakat (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My response is available on their talk page. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

relavance and authenticity is the qualities of a page. citation by others is one of the proofs of authenticity. i think for a place or monument its photos, way to that place, history etc are enough. i will try proofs for its history.--Dvellakat (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would evidence the notability of this temple under WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question, I drew a blank looking for English sources, but is there anything in Malayalam? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 11:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.