Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulpakji

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. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 07:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kulpakji

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

This is a non-notable temple. It does not meet WP:GNG and show no indication of importance. It has been claimed earlier that this temple is 2500 years old,[1] but the claim is completely misguided. The tradition of temples was not there in Jainism during that time and even the earliest surviving Jain temples were built atleast four to five hundred years after. Rahul (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its not me who made the claim of 2500 year old history. Its The Hindu which says so.[2] If that claim is false, am sure you will come up with a reference that specifically negates this claim. Which could be very difficult to establish since many references are available for that era's Jain temples. In Jainism: An Indian Religion of SalvationISBN 8120813766 pg 44 Helmuth von Glasenapp writes that Samprati (224–215 BC) had erected numerous temples. Till you bring a source otherwise, a monument of that age is quite notable for staying on Wikipedia irrespective of its lesser media coverage. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that news item is enough to meet WP:GNG. --Rahul (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historical site too. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than 10,000 people being expected to attend its reopening ceremonies (per The Hindu, clearly a reputable source) suggests it's a pretty important place for the Jain religion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 15 January 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.