Deletion of Radha Madhav Dham

Comment: This organization is clearly the same as (or a successor of) the previous one, and it's unclear how the nominator missed that when researching the topic, as required by . This article should be kept and restored, and this debate closed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: The nominator's rationale and comments appear to  be based on  |opinion. If the former temple  was dissolved and its  management, owners, community  and followers and worshipers have all gone elsewhere, and perhaps even the buildings razed to the ground, the temple under its former name is nevertheless not  less notable following  its closure, and the redirect should be undone. If,  however, the same followers and  from  the local  or regional  Hindu  communities continue to  use the complex and worship  there, then there is a very  strong  argument for for keeping  the article as a simple |page move following  its change of name, management  and guru. The matter to  be debated is what  in  the Hindu philosophy constitutes a temple? Its complex of buildings, its guru, or its worshipers? These are issues that  should be examined and discussed on  the relevant talk  pages towards retention  of one, the other, or both  articles, and neither article should be summarily dismissed as a possible candidates for redirect  or deletion. The criterion is 'verifiability not  truth' and AfD is probably  not not  the best  place for such  discussion. My  suggestion, failing  an outcome through  discussion  and |reliable sources for the temple under its new name, is to  undo  the redirect and page move, and '''redirect Radha Madhav Dham to  the former article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:MOVE||WP:RS)