Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubayakathirgamam

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. As ever, a discussion on merging or redirecting can be made on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubayakathirgamam

Non notable religious organization with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - find sources and expand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep for what? There is no reason and specifically no notability. Also, where are the reliable sources that merit an expansion? Please do explain your comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Murugan or to Katirkamam (Hindu temple). We have to apply the same standards to a Hindu temple in Sri Lanka that we would apply to a house of worship anywhere else in the world, and not every church, synagogue or mosque would be considered inherently notable either. If verifiable sources can be found for some of the statements that might indicate notability (such as the statement that this is the second such temple in all of Sri Lanka), then that would be a reason for keep. As it is, however, the nominator is right that there are no reliable sources. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, no reliable sources and no clear place to merge. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Temples or the yantras that appear themselves are considered to be having high devotional power according to Hindus. Resources should be found and added. Thanks. --Kanapathipillai (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Katirkamam (Hindu temple) unless RS sources are founfd to back it up. Taprobanus (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger: The article says the temple is second Katirkamam, no reliable ref to back it. The fact it is called second Katirkaman, points to it being distinct from Katirkamam. Merging in Katirkamam (Hindu temple) or Murugan is not the solution.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no reasons provided for keeping this article other than; 1) "find sources and expand," and 2) "Temples or the yantras that appear themselves are considered to be having high devotional power according to Hindus." These are not good reasons for keeping this article. This article is still about a non-notable organization with no reliable sources. As such, it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Presently, there are no arguements that address the issues laid out above concerning the lack of both notability and reliable sources. There has been an oportunity for these issues to be addressed, but no evidence to the contrary has been provided. As it is, this article continues to be about a non-notable subject which has no reliable sources to verify claims to notability, and should thus be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is about a temple, where all the deities - God Muruga(Yantra), Vilatheeswaran(Wood apple tree), and the letters representing Vinayagar, Siva and Shakties appeared in nature. This is known to be the one and only Hindu temple of this kind, in the country(may be even in the world). It has significant similarities with Katirgamam(but Katirgamam has been leaving the hands of Hindus, and now considered a major temple for Buddhists). The article is, yes of course, based only on two sources, as listed. I can send a scanned copy of the pamphlet for review if it is allowed. According to the God Muruga's wish, the temple has not been given any major modification. I hope that the wikipedia contributors from the region will help to add more sources. I know the rules of wikipedia of notability. And thanks to all contributing to this discussion. --Pradeeban (talk) 06:35, 29 November 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.