Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hare Krishna Temple (Toronto)

From 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hare Krishna Temple (Toronto)

Hare Krishna Temple (Toronto) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable entry. Not every Hare Krishna temple is notable and Wikipedia is not a place to advertise every place of worship. Ism schism (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable entry. Not every ISKCON temple should be on wikipedia. Ism schism (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable building by a notable firm of architects. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mainly again because of architectural significance and the fact that its rear for ISKCON temple to have previously a church building. That alone is notable. No vanity in the article and NPOV is maintained. Good example of article with proper image and references. Wikidas (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is notable, not because it is a Hare Krishna temple, but because the building is a landmark in Toronto, with important historical connections.Paradiso (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Concerning the buildings architecture, I have a few questions. Does the purchase of an historic building confer notability on the organizaiton that purchased it? The notablity of Avenue Road Church was its architecture and history. Does this mean that the Hare Krishna Temple (Toronto) has inherited the notability of Avenue Road Church? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is the structure that remains architecturally notable, whatever name it goes by. Paradiso (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, appears to be notable as a landmark which happens to be a place of worship. RFerreira (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


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.