Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISKCON Temple, Salem

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Temple, Salem

[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)

This temple fails WP:NORG. No indication why this temple is notable to have its own article. Lack of coverage in reliable media. On second thoughts I think this is suitable for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Venkat TL (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment I don't think this is eligible for A7. The subject appears be a building. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#A7 is applicable. It is a non notable branch of an org. Venkat TL (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute that, but it is irrelevant in this case because this indicates importance/significance, which is a much lower standard than notability. Why do so many people want to do things summarily rather than discuss them properly? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic comments replied at User talk Venkat TL (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this discussion is unnecessary, this is a temple built by International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and more than this, many of temples built by ISCKON is exists in Wikipedia

* ISKCON Temple, Chennai

* Temple of the Vedic Planetarium, Mayapur

And many more, so this is unnecessary. If you still want to delete this article, please move the article to ISCKON, if you delete this, it may affect my rights in future. Ram Dhaneesh (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such an "other stuff exists" argument doesn't hold water. It is perfectly possible for some temples to be notable and others not. In those cases the temple in Chennai is larger than this one and the one in Mayapur is intended to be the world-wide headquarters of ISKCON. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ram Dhaneesh what kind of your rights will be affected in future if this article is deleted? Please clarify. Venkat TL (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to ISCKON. Content is insufficient for a separate article. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a pretty bad idea. Do you really think that our article on ISKCON should contain a paragraph about every ISKCON temple in the world? That would make the article very long and overwhelm the other content in it. Better to keep or delete this, or find another merge target such as "Salem, Tamil Nadu#Landmarks". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you object to that, why not start a list article of all ISKCON temples worldwide? There are other temple articles up for deletion. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see coverage in local language as well. Vikatan coverage is single paragraph, other three are briefer notes about Krishna Janmastami. (used translate, tell me if I'm wrong).. --Hemanthah (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion would be beneficial to determine consensus as it isn't currently clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, for having no claim to notability. If a list page is created, it could be added, but there is really no material to save at this time. Ifnord (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2021 (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.