Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akshayapureeswarar Temple

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshayapureeswarar Temple

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

~~Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How on earth would a 14C building not be notable? In any country with a decent heritage listing system this would definitely be listed and meet WP:GEOFEAT. It's unfortunate it's in India, which doesn't, but it's still covered by WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Necrothesp is right, I was too focused on the sourcing rather than the overall picture. Happy to be corrected. Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2024 (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.