Karumpuli Sastha and Thadikara Swamy Temple: Fails to establish notability , and doesn't appear to have coverage at all in reliable sources .  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 07:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Hinduism , India ,  and Tamil Nadu .  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 07:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kindly clarify whether the below can be considered as reliable source ?  https://www.muthalankurichikamarasu.com/shop/%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%87%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%81-2/ (A 117 page book on "Kulasekaranatham Karumpuli Sastha' by Muthalankurichi Kaamarasu in non English (Tamil) which is available in Kindle) Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 11:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and SALT - the editor won't go through the AfC process, the draft has been declined then moved to mainspace despite that. It was also draftified - and submission declined - as Arulmigu Sri Thadikara Swamy & Sri Petchiamman Thaayaar Arulmigu Sri Karumpuli Andavar Temple, Kulasekaranatham, Alwarthirunagari, Thoothukudi . It's not notable and the author is simply wasting people's time. Given the author's only contribution to WP is these unhelpful articles a CIR block would save further time being wasted, BTW. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If so many sastha temples are considered notable under WP with few sources how come this particular page is nominated for deletion inspite of adding sufficient independent and secondary sources cited by me. Further lot of information has to be added to this article based on a book. Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 08:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "But what about X" is not a sufficient reason to keep an article. Cortador ( talk ) 09:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the sources added by me are in native language which is not understandable by the reviewer. Further such kind of sastha temple related information are already present in WP with few sources which can be reviewed at your level. I have gone through the AFC process and cited sources from established news agency. Further cited a book under sources which is overlooked by you. I haven't added neither theory nor stick to my own interest. Kindly review the article by its sources not in a hurry burry manner. Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 08:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reference no 1 is Official website of Government of Tamilnadu, India. The identity and existence of the temple can be confirmed using this source. Reference no 2 is Official Government website of Tuticorin District of Tamilnadu, India. The existence of RV (Revenue Village) Paragramapandi can be confirmed using this source. External Link no 1 is a notable tamil weekly magazine which briefly narrates about the history of the temple ( Sthala Purana) This article is an eye opener for the people who are anxious to know about history, meaning of the name karumpuli, location details, deity etc The above three are sufficient enough for the present version of the article. Furthermore External Links from 2 to 7 provides 'supporting' to the primary sources mentioned above. Work is on to gather additional information for expansion of the article Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 11:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt : Poor sourcing and the creator trying to dodge scrutiny by creating a draftified article under a slightly different name are sufficient reasons. Cortador ( talk ) 09:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] may please maintain decorum while replying. Based on comments received for original article, title is altered short to express precise meaning by removing location name / honour name. Further the contents of the latest article fully adheared to the sources. Still you haven't answer the core point how come similar pages exist with few one or two sources much less than what I have cited. Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 10:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have answered your question: the existence or absence of one article doesn't justify the existence or absence of another. If you think those other articles are lacking, feel free to give them an appropriate tag, or nominate them for deletion. It's not the job of any other editor to do that for you. I have linked the policy that is based on above; if you don't understand that, I can't help you. The article current cites two sources, and they are both government websites and unsuitable to establish notability, independently from the language they are in. Also, below you openly admit that you simply altered the title of your original declined article "to express precise meaning" i.e. trying to sneak the article through under a different name is precisely what you are doing. You, quite literally, said so yourself. Cortador ( talk ) 11:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kindly clarify how government website is unsuitable for establishing notability. Quite Interesting.  Again I'm telling I have edited the article title only to express precise meaning. How come that is not fit in terms of WP. Quite exciting policies you have. Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 11:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please review your policy instead of replying. Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 11:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] if editing article title is against WP policy then why you are enabling such option ? Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 11:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] location name thus removed from title is Kulasekaranatham. Honour names are Arulmigu and Sri. Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 10:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] these are in native languages which are not properly decoded at your end. Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 10:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reference no 1 is Official website of Government of Tamilnadu, India. The identity and existence of the temple can be confirmed using this source. Reference no  2 is Official Government website of Tuticorin District of Tamilnadu, India. The existence of RV (Revenue Village) Paragramapandi can be confirmed using this source. External Link no 1 is a notable tamil weekly magazine which briefly narrates about the history of the temple ( Sthala Purana) This article is an eye opener for the people who are anxious to know about history, meaning of the name karumpuli, location details, deity etc The above three are sufficient enough for the present version of the article. Furthermore External Links from  2 to 7 provides 'supporting' to the primary sources mentioned above. Work is on to gather additional information for expansion of the article. Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 11:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there does not seem to have "Significant coverage". References 1, 2 only establish its existence. Dinamalar external link also mentions it in its list of temples. External Link no 1 Kungumam (magazine) is an entertainment magazine; not a WP:RS for this topic. I also checked the Tamil external lists - most refer to the temple in passing reference. Arunvikram2208 , you can add RS coverage in non-English to establish "Significant coverage"; can reconsider. Redtigerxyz Talk 12:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kindly clarify whether the below can be considered as reliable source ? https://www.muthalankurichikamarasu.com/shop/%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%87%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%81-2/ (A 117 page book on "Kulasekaranatham Karumpuli Sastha' by Muthalankurichi Kaamarasu in non English (Tamil) which is available in Kindle) Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 10:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Reviewer, Can I have an update on the notability of the article considering the above source.  Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 11:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and Salt as not notable, the most minor of temples, of which there are many thousands in India.  It seems that salting is also necessary given the repeated attempts to get this article onto Wikipedia.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 16:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kindly clarify whether the below can be considered as reliable source ?  https://www.muthalankurichikamarasu.com/shop/%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%87%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%81-2/ (A 117 page book on "Kulasekaranatham Karumpuli Sastha' by Muthalankurichi Kaamarasu in non English (Tamil) which is available in Kindle) Arunvikram2208 ( talk ) 11:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Arunvikram2208 : You don't need to post the same message three times.  My view is that this book is not a reliable source, as it looks like it's being printed by a small-time publisher with no evidence of editorial oversight.  The low-quality cover image isn't helping either.  However, even if it were a reliable source, notability requires one to show that significant coverage exists on the subject; just one source is not enough to demonstrate that.  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 15:19, 16 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete