Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Khalsa Darbar


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ontario Khalsa Darbar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Church with no notability (closest thing to it is a teen being stabbed in its parking lot). Reads like an ad Withdrawn per below (December 8, 22:05)  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep'. Lots of references at this Google News archive search, with controversies such as a dispute over whether Sikh marriages can be performed in a hotel which serves alcohol and meat and a Sikh priest who stayed at the Ontario Khalsa Darbar, defying a deportation order. When you do a Google News archive search, enclose the phrase you are searching on in quotation marks, especially when the phrase is made up of relatively common words. – Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions.  – Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  – Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete only minor notability. There are sources, and it does exist, but it has no notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. In my opinion, this is a case where the guidelines should be bent a bit. It is a significant establishment for the Sikh community in the Toronto/Mississauga/Brampton area, so my recommendation is more gut-feel driven than guideline driven. That said, the article is badly written and in dire need of a re-write.   PK  T (alk)  15:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

A place of worship like countless other places of worship, no doubt significant to those who attend it, as is every other church, temple or synagogue. That does not make it notable and there is no assertion in the article that it is in any way notable (architecture? dimensions? age?). News coverage is about things that happened in the vicinity, not the place itself. Delete Emeraude (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It just needs more one or two references...Rirunmot 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep and clean up extensively. There are sources that show notability, so this can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem. I did it myself.  This is one of the largest Sikh temples in Canada, and it attracts tens of thousands of celebrants for major religious festivals. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As nominator, while I don't believe the Google news search is a legitimate source to use to claim the quality of "notability", that it is the largest Sikh temple in Canada is enough for it to be notable and for me to withdraw my nomination, and !vote Keep. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:05, 8 December 2009 (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.