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 as Sri Rajarajeswari Peetam (already merged). Not eligible for speedy deletion, as such, discounted. — _Maggot^Syn 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sr Rajarajeswari Peetam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable temple, fails WP:ORG, WP:V. Only 19 Google hits, including this article, the temple's website, and so on. No reliable sources proffered or seemingly extant.  RGTraynor  07:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete "X is very notable" is an entirely trivial assertion of significance. Beyond that, there's nothing to indicate that this passes WP:CSD A7. Tagged as such. deranged bulbasaur 07:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/move/merge I soon found a reliable source which I have cited. Note that the article title seems to contain a typo - Sr rather than Sri and this will throw searches off. We also have translation issues to consider - Hindi sources ought to be searched too. This article and author seem to be new and so seems to need some nuturing rather than being stamped on. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've removed the speedy. Found one ref [1]--Tikiwont (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll refrain from restoring the speedy tag to make a point, but I believe that your removal was in error. A7 is about assertions of notability, and the inclusion of such assertions is its test. The article still does not include such an assertion. The existence of sources found through web search has no bearing on a test that is contingent on the current content of the article. deranged bulbasaur 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A temple asserts notability by virtue of its intrinsic holiness. CSD A7 is weaker than your interpretation and is intended only to screen out very mundane matters. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Supposed holiness is not an objective property of entities that can be used for evaluation of their encyclopedic suitability. deranged bulbasaur 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How is holiness not an objective property of entities??? Holiness doesn't even need reliable sources at all, it just is. It is all around us. We are all ONE!!! This is objectivity at it's strongest. Wow, I am amazed and in a complete state of awe because of the holiness!!! Love the holiness. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it is. Such places claim to have divine associations or spiritual sanctity and so they are usually treated with respect and deference. They therefore have a status which places them above ordinary dwellings or commercial establishments. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Holiness is a very strong arguement - especially intrinsic holiness! And, since the issue is beyond "very mundane matters," all editors should proceed with caution as this article concerns the holiness of Sr Rajarajeswari Peetam. Let us all take a while and reflect upon the importance here, at this very holy time during this very holy Afd discussion. I feel sacred to be apart of this process. Thanks to all the holy editors. Ism schism (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to argue whether the original content would justify a speedy deletion or not. But, to quote the respective policy "Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria." And i think in this case we're better of with continuing this already existing discussion to assess whether or not we should have an article on this topic, than with the simple decision-making process of speedy deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Have you yet formed an opinion for the AFD process? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete Non notable with no reliable sources, which has been very difficult given the holiness factor... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article cites a reliable source, your comment should be dismissed as unreliable. Are there major schisms in Hinduism which explain your prejudice? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My prejudice, as you say, is against poorly written, non notable, non referenced articles - and the editors who support them with useless statement after statement of empty words. Ism schism (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability and verifiability is extraordinariliy strong due to the subject's inclusion in a 2004 Oxford University Press source. So unless there's evidence of wantont bad faith, I must say keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - What I linked above is actually an article excerpt of the mentioned a 2005 academic study by Corine Dempsey that is also mentioned in Shaktism.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this study as additional source to the article. It is also from Oxford University Press. A preview that indicates that it is an in depth coverage of this particular temple can be found here.[2]. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The above reference mentions this temple in a chapter in a book published by Oxford University Press. The temple is not the subject of the book, nor even the chapter - the chapter is a story about people moving into a new temple. This reference lets us know that the temple exist, but it does not explain how it is a notable temple - as the subject of this chapter is NOT about the temples notability, but is a story about a move from a garage to a proper temple structure. This is a passing reference for the temple itself, one that is concerned with specific people, and does not establish notablity on the temple itself. Were this a chapter in a book on notable Hindu temples, then I would agree. But as it is, there are no references that establish notablity on the temple itslef. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the other source, "Diaspora of the Gods," only mentions the temple in one sentence - out of an entire book. This is a passing reference as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, "Diaspora of the Gods," only mentions the temple. If i look at the publishers' page of "The Goddess Lives in Upstate New York"[3]] , it is listed as "profile of a flourishing Hindu temple in the town of Rush, New York" and the cited reviews there call it "Dempsey's study of an unconventional, but successful, Hindu temple community in upstate New York" and "Corinne Dempsey's study of the Rush Temple in Rochester, New York" respectively. I understand that there is a large part of additional material in the book than solely about 'the temple itself', whatever you may mean by that, but unless I am mistaken about the identity of the temple it seems really to be about a case study on this temple, its rituals, its guru and its community. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the context of Dempsey's studies on temples in "Upstate New York," this story about certain people and their move to New York is relevant. This chapter could be used in an article on "Hinduism in New York." Though, in the context of notable temples, this one does not have much notability aside from this study. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Hinduism Today link is a reprint from a page of Dempsey's comments on the temple. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A passing mention in a reliable source, or two, is a much better argument than holiness. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure if the move to Sri Rajarajeshwari templeis helpful. I'd moved to Sri Rajarajeswari Peetam where the original creator has created a duplicate instead of joining this discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is all under the one heading now. We probably need another move to Sri Rajarajeshwari temple (Rush, NY) but this should do for now. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete Part of the subject of one study, but aside from this; there is little to no scholarly attention and the article is not the subject of significant media attention. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An OUP book specifically and exclusively devoted to this particular temple is surely enough for notability. This very much amounts to scholarly attention. Given the additional material as well, there really should have been no question on this after that reference was added.
• Keep Cant argue with da DGG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the importance it gives to the Srividya worshiping society, that is not very big as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.195.240 (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2008 (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.