Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerul Balaji Temple, Maharashtra


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Nerul Balaji Temple, Maharashtra

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Claims no notability, fails WP:GNG §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would have liked to see a fuller nomination; Indian subjects can be difficult for the rest of us. At first glance this looks like one of those impressive south Indian temple towers from centuries ago -- but if I understand it correctly, this is actually a geographically displaced modern replica of the Venkateswara Temple, something akin to a Las Vegas Eiffel tower. It could still be notable according to WP:GNG (if there are better sources out there), but it can hardly be important in itself. It is probably better to just mention it with a sentence or two within some other article. --Hegvald (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * discoveredindia.com doesn't seem to be much a reliable source to believe on. The temple is definitely not some centuries old one, but could be a scaled down replica. But had it been a replica it would have received some press coverage at inaugural or even while in the making. Honestly I feel, this claim of it being a replica is just a poor OR as many south-Indian temples show similar architecture styles and layouts. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Can't find enough on searches to show it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:00, 8 December 2015 (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.