Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin Long Si 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. There now appear to be sufficient satisfactory references  DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jin Long Si Temple

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Apart from the Straits Times RS, there was online RS coverage found. The Straits Times referenced in the article seems to talking only displacement of the temple. Wikipedia is not news. Could not trace any RS only about Jin Long Si Temple as a notable building/temple/organization. Redtigerxyz Talk 14:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on the Singapore Heritage Yahoo! Group website asking if anyone is aware of reliable third-party sources about the temple. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As a result of my request for information, I've been informed that a book has been written about the temple: . There is a copy of it at the National Library of Singapore but it is only available for reference viewing (i.e., it can't be borrowed out of the library). I have not had a chance to view it at the Library yet. In any case, the existence of the book may indicate that the temple is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article about it. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Merge and redirect to Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General, which is clearly notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the book mentioned by Jacklee and suspicion that the nominator did not attempt to find reliable Chinese-language sources. Hint: search Newspapers.SG for "金龙寺". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 04:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I am adding some references below   . The article may have to be edited but the subject does meet WP:NOTE based on this alone. -Wikishagnik (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)