Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakkadiya Hanuman 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 redirect to Bhat, Daskroi. There is only one reasoned "keep" opinion. Otherwise it's a split between merge and delete. Redirect is a compromise as it allows editorial consensus to determine what, if anything, to merge. Sandstein 13:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lakkadiya Hanuman Temple

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable. Sources are primary. Fails WP:GNG and has no more coverage in secondary reliable sources. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. or Merge' to the article on the town The sources listed are secondary, not primary. The links do not work, but that does not mean that plain information such as this is not sourceable. We do not remove articles because of dead links unlesswe are sure there is no other possible source . DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG before taking part in deletion, please check reference. First one is government site of district administration and has no mention of this temple except name of village. And second one is related to ISKCON organisation, not to this temple. Third, name of lakkadiya hanuman is present in every 2 out of 5 villages of Gujarat. Wiki must not have articles on each temples. And as per Wikipedia’s policy of verifiability, all content must be verifiable.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’m pinging locals @Nizil Shah and Gazal world: for their comment about place and pinging @DBigXray, Ms Sarah Welch, and Winged Blades of Godric: who’re active participants in Wikiproject Hinduism.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169 what does this translate to ? Wooden Hanuman Temple ? --DBigXrayᗙ 06:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes loosely. Temple made up from wood.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bhat village. --Gazal world (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after Merge into Bhat village per DGG and Gazal world. Not notable on its own, and would be prone to content forking if left alone (I did a quick source checks on google scholar/books/news/jstor/etc). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a (admittedly quick) gsearch has not brought up any indepth sources that give this any significance, no problems with having it mentioned at Bhat, Daskroi. ps. i note that the article creator appeared to have made lots of Bhat related articles (including the village), this one is just not wikinotable enough for a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass my standards for houses of worship. There's no evidence of when it was built or its Architectural style: much less its significance as a pilgrimage site or house of worship. Just to be sure, I did an online search and found 14 blogs and mirrors. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian thanks for your searches, [1] that you linked is a wikipedia mirror.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Bhat village. It exists and we should WP:PRESERVE Wm335td (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wm335td: you know you didn’t read the PRESERVE before commenting. This temple doesn’t meet WP:V. Isn’t that clear for you? How can unverifiable information can be tolerated on Wikipedia?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bhat, Daskroi.4meter4 (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the last re-list, we have a Keep, Delete and a Merge. Try another re-list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems appropriate at this time. This does not appear to be a notable temple and the village article is not so big that merging will be an issue. Guy (help!) 13:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Details are not verifiable. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are WP:V and WP:OR concerns with this one. Dee 03 16:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDIA contributor here. There are WP:V and WP:OR concerns and there is absolutely nothing worth saving in this article, so the merge or redirect options are not viable. The temple in itself fails WP:GNG.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:54, 14 November 2019 (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.