Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhimana Sthalam

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimana Sthalam

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

as per WP:Unreferenced and WP:OR Vin09 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because all my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant aside from some results at Books (but nothing significant or in-depth) and two minor mentions at News. Sources are probably offline and non-English and the article doesn't currently have any more good information so delete is the only option. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a violation of NPOV, in a sense: the "article" is a statement that these are the holiest or most important, and then there is a list. Either that's a hat rack to get 29 new articles made, or it's a list that simply asserts a fact that's already contained in its lede. Arguing for holiest, best, etc., is extraordinary without heavy citation. Therefore, in addition to the nominating rationale, we have the potential NPOV problem (unless there is serious citation, and then we're hit with the "you're saying what you just said" problem). Hithladaeus (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2015 (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.