Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malibu Hindu Temple
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malibu Hindu Temple
- Malibu Hindu Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable temple, no more notable than any other religious structure that doesn't make any claims of notability (unless having appeared in a small scene in a movie is notability) Woogee (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While requiring some rewriting, the article clearly addresses the notability in the introduction, including being used in multiple movies, being the location of an event with worldwide media coverage. Additionally, a search of Google News shows significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent source. No need to delete when some small rewrites will do. —siroχo 02:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a very notable Hindu temple with multiple non-trivial news pieces (unrelated to a movie) in the LA Times, at least one news piece that seems to have found its way to many national newspapers among others (and apparently some sort of celebrity coverage too that seems incidental). —SpacemanSpiff 02:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 02:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I had created this article in 2006. It is clearly notable, a search on it's registered name "Hindu Temple Society of Southern California" [1] turns up many results from credible sources (including New York Times and LA Times). The article does need fixing. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obviously a notable place. Article needs cleaning up, not deletion. Dew Kane (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.