Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoga Siddhi Vinayagar Temple, Chennai


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yoga Siddhi Vinayagar Temple, Chennai

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Firstly, the article has no references. And then, there is no indication of notability. There are thousands of Hindu temples in Chennai; there are even localities where there are one or two Hindu temples for every street. From the article itself, I can understand that this particular temple is not of any historical importance, whatsoever. So is there anything unique about this temple? If not, then why should this article not be deleted? The Enforcer Office of the secret service 05:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Googling indicates that the temple is of some local importance, but doesn't help find any significant reliable sources. Maybe someone who knows Tamil can try finding non-English sources. I'd say merge the content to Porur, unless someone establishes importance. utcursch | talk 06:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Google Books returns 0 hits. A search on the web returns unreliable links as Wikimapia and hindudharmaforums. I know of, atleast, one another Ganesa temple in Porur; I don't know how much exist in all. The article, itself, claims that it is just a small shrine erected by a minor local body. Many such small shrines exist, most of them, erected in the last 20 or 30 years by private individuals or associations.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 12:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - quite apart from the lack of refs, temple is entirely non-notable. I'm all for good coverage of major, notable temples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2011 (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 00:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2011 (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.