Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moti Dungri

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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moti Dungri

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

Delete. Claims made in the article cannot be verified from the source. Source mentioned is primary. Unless further reliable sources are provided, this article is not notable and should be deleted. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A simple Google search results in many RS. Some of them: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. There are also some Gbooks hits for this temple. Again I see the absence of WP:BEFORE. Anup [Talk] 00:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of attractions in Jaipur. Despite so many google hits the encyclopedic content won't be much to have standalone article after all unsourced content is removed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a second look? Replaced unsourced contents with sourced ones, and it looks like a decent stub. Anup [Talk] 14:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple RS given by Anup support its notability.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't really evaluate some of the added sources, but it looks notable enough and the nomination doesn't really address notability, just article quality. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains many reliable sources that prove its significance. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:53, 15 October 2016 (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.