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. Hut 8.5 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nallalamma Temple, Anantapur[edit]

Nallalamma Temple, Anantapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable temple, one of literally millions of temples from India. Fails WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No references per WP:Reliable sources.--Vin09 (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No valid deletion rationale. The nomination includes assertion that there are millions of temples in India, which is false. Don't waste our time, just quickly close this AFD. No great prejudice against a new AFD later, if/when a legitimate nomination is constructed. --doncram 20:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: "fails GNG" is a valid reasoning. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, fine, then to clarify I suggest closing the AFD simply because the nominator included blatant falsehood in their nomination statement. For purpose of this AFD, I disbelieve everything else they say, too, including their assertion that the article topic does not meet GNG. I doubt they performed wp:BEFORE. --doncram 21:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I performed a check before nominating the article. If you dont want to believe me, it is totally fine. But instead of making assumptions, I suggest verifying notability for yourself. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article does not have any references and is based on original research. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am all for keeping articles about places and buildings in India and I have tried to save many. But this one seems like one of the many small temples for which there is no published history available.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to say that I don't know Telegu and I have only looked at English sources. If there is more information I would be happy to change.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Normally I disregard article lameness, but this one is prety much unsalvagable. It doesn't pass the GNG, and nothing can be constructed from the one source, so Delete. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a total mess, and for lack of verification, notability as a house of worship, and lacking reliable sources. A quick search finds no online sources that might be useful; only one privately-published book even mentions this temple, and there are no sources at all at Google scholar. I have no problem if, as with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parasmaninath_Temple, the temple were to be notable due to its age and other factors - not so in this case. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2017 (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.