Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalarickal Temple

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. Userfying hoping the editor/author comes back. I'll improve it if possible myself. Some references are available on initial search. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalarickal Temple[edit]

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

non notable structure, removed prod WuhWuzDat 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New user's first article prodded two minutes after creation. Prod removed with talk page note: "Its a notable structure and having great history, It is not notable to all persons.. Several articles related to the temple need to be addedd, so it require time.. This is a starting page for the article...and will be improved on the coming days..." Immediately sent to AfD. No welcome on new user's talk page. May be Kalarickal Temple mentioned in Fairs and Festivals of India: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu. Perhaps we may find out if we give the new user more than two minutes to inform us. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the book, it is apparently a different temple (Kalarickal Bhagavathy Temple, p. 105). The location doesn't fit, though it is close. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on discussion with the article's creator User_talk:AbbyKelleyite#MalluManMax and this edit [1], I think the article's creator would like to have this article userfied (WP:USERFY) until able to gather sources and become more informed about notability policy. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per AbbyKelleyite, and let's reread the guidelines at WP:Don't bite the newcomers. I really hate it when a good-faith article (as opposed to vandalism or spam) gets jumped on the minute it is created; I think we should give people a little time to get it together. JMO. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch ·comms 00:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have userfied this, but the creator seems to have retired. Relisting now for other comments. —fetch ·comms 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 25 September 2010 (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.