Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindu temples in Bareilly

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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu temples in Bareilly[edit]

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

Hindu temples would be plenty in an Indian city/town. A "list of Hindu temples in [Indian town]" should hence only include blue link entries that are notable. This list fails WP:V and WP:NLIST. Article was PRODed with this reason but was dePRODed by User:DGG saying "inadequate reason.First check for sources; then, for those that cannot be verified, remove. Butthey need only be verified. WP is not paper." which I don't agree with and hence raising AfD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a whole category of these, Category:Lists of Hindu temples in India, just as there are Category:Lists of churches in England and List of synagogues in Israel. Just because they are common doesn't necessarily mean unnotable. Article should be improved; see List of temples in Bhubaneswar. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as in there's a precedent for these types of articles. Claiming there are many of something does not mean they are not notable. Just because articles haven't been created yet for most of the temples doesn't mean they aren't notable. Did you Google any of the temples listed to find out if they are notable? —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stick by my stand that such a list is against what WP:NOT says. And I don't see you editing the list and improving it in anyway. All your talk is based on possibilities. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Routine type of article. We have one such for every locatity where there are sufficient to justify it--if not, it can be merged to the locality. Our practice is that such lists do not have to contain only temples that are themselves notable--this sort of list is a suitable place to include those that are not, as provided by WP:N, DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can the list be blanked per WP:NLIST and WP:V? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:12, 10 November 2015 (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.