Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chongyuan 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   00:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Chongyuan Temple

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deprodded without rationale, and with the addition a single primary reference. Article currently has no references from independent, reliable sources. No indication of notability. Searches turned up 3 brief mentions.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sorry for no rationale, it appeared as an obvious keep to me. I've gone and added a couple more references to fill it out.  I'm not sure what the "3 mentions" are, but I pulled up many English-language references and 100s of Chinese-language references after a quick search. --NoGhost (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Obvious keep from me too. One of the major sites of Suzhou.  References in the article demonstrate passing notability guidelines.  The nom should be aware that WP:AFD only requires the existence of sources, not that they already be in the article.  Frequently with Chinese names, there are multiple alternate Latin character spellings.  With this subject there is at least "Zhongyuan Temple" (as indicated on Google Maps) and "Chongyuan Temple" as well as the simplified Chinese "重元寺" all of which bring up much more than three "brief mention" search results. --Oakshade (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - the place is covered in multiple sources and is well clear of the GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. How on God's earth could this historic temple, rebuilt or not, ever be subject to an AfD? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's worth piling on but, even ignoring its history and treating this as a modern work of architecture, there's a statue the height of Christ the Redeemer within the building. Have also added stuff to article. Fuebaey (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Piling on. -- do  ncr  am  14:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.