Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pazhayar Sree Dharmasastha 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 delete. The one sort-of-"keep" isn't really understandable. Sandstein 16:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pazhayar Sree Dharmasastha Temple[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2 years, non-notable local temple claiming no notability failing WP:GNG. PROD declined stating no reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is meant for maintaining a continuous support for the temple. It is one of the oldest temple @ chengannur , Kerala. I think we have enough genuinity & evidences from attached links below the page proving that the page should not be considered for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopunair (talk • contribs) 06:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "maintaining a continuous support"? Please note that Wikipedia should not be used for advocacy and propaganda of any sorts. The links present at the end of the article are all Facebook links and fb pages can be created by anyone. You should read WP:GNG and provide evidence of how the temple is notable for WP standards. I have now noticed that you have created many articles on similar such temples which do not claim any notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's apparently one of the oldest locally but, as expected with these subjects, there's not always the transparency of sourcing availability thus nothing for a better article and its notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 12:50, 24 May 2016 (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.