Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Mayapur Chandrodaya Mandir


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Perhaps when this building is completed, it will receive adequate significant coverage and this deletion decision can be revisited. But today the consensus is deletion.

This article can be restored to Draft space if editors want to continue to work on it. But it shouldn't be moved back to main space without passing AFC. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sri Mayapur Chandrodaya Mandir

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

NN building. Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, India,  and West Bengal. UtherSRG (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't delete. Sandip 17:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul
 * Please could you tell us why you think that the article should be kept. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are multiple reasons not to delete this page. All the information given on this page is true. I travelled here. So as per my experience, I can say that the information described in Wikipedia is the same as in real life. Architecture, geographic location, etc. are all properly mentioned here. So I think, for now, there is no need to delete this page. This article can be improved if needed, but deleting it would be a bad move. Sandip 17:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul
 * These are not legitimate reasons. Please educate yourself on what is required to support keeping an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They are not policy-compliant reasons, but they are his/her reasons. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Do not delete. @Reason No 1 Reason No 2 Reason No 3. Reason No 4. Reason No 5–Sandip (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul
 * A donation link in the first article does not make it useful. Could be seen as promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it will really be the largest religious building in the world (and even if not, it is clearly one of the largest) then it is obviously notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we don't have sourcing to back that up, this is the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG and NBUILD. Sources in the article and above are not independent sources non-promo secondary sources. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  19:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple news sources are saying this is notable. There is no need to delete.–Iamshampa (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC) — Iamshampa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul

It is arguable that newspaper articles based on ISKCON press releases might be to some extent independent and reliable because journalists and fact checkers probably applied limited fact checking and the newspapers would have ignored the press releases if ISKCON had not been notable. Note that five of the newspaper articles were evidently based on the same press release - so they are not independent of each other. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * References don't have to be independent of each other, just independent of the subject. In this case, it's a moot point, since press releases are not independent, and they were all based on the press release. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the table, BTW. Makes the discussion easier. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I also offer thanks for the source eval.  // Timothy :: talk  17:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per the source analysis. could not find any better sources myself. DrowssapSMM (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Based on the source table shown, this does not meet notability for buildings. It is likely not old enough to qualify for historical building status, so it would fall under GNG guidelines. Beyond confirmation of existing, I don't see much we can use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG Outlook, HT, ET, Times of India all covered about its opening. BS covered it as early as 2014. Tripadvisor, Government of West Benegal treats it as a tourist place. Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not exactly - its opening is always in the future; the newspaper articles said covered its opening were written in 2022 and said it would open in 2023; but earlier articles gave earlier opening dates; I think they were written in response to press releases. Sri Mayapur Chandrodaya Mandir's website currently says that it will open in 429 days and 14 hours - i.e. 1 December 2024. But they are still trying to raise funds to pay building costs, so don't hold your breath. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2023 (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.