Deletion of Muktabai Temple

Comment: or possibly a redirect to Muktabai) not every place of worship is noteworthy, .  All but one of the sources in the article fail to provide any indication of notability of the temple *per se*, they simply provide trivial mentions confirming the temple exists and its location. The one article actually about the temple is a short three sentence piece announcing a grant for spending on renovations at the temple; it cannot be considered .  Regards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPLACE||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Per  as to its age, a temple this old clearly meets notability standards. India is not good at listing its heritage buildings. Per , in any country that is, this would clearly be listed and meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:SYSTEMIC||WP:GEOFEAT)

Comment: There are seven references already cited. While it is difficult to assess them without knowing the local language, they do appear to be discussing this temple. Per , this article should not be deleted simply because it is a stub. The nominator cites , but that policy does not appear to call for the deletion of good articles created by blocked users. So I don't feel that a valid reason for deletion has been given. Commenter above me was blocked earlier today as being a sockpuppet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:BMB)

Comment: per my rationale above, which is: a 12th century temple is probably meeting NBUILD. However, I acknowledge that no reference for this was provided, and I am also AGFing the 12th century claim  here since the sources are not in English. A quick query on GBooks and GScholar confirms the entity exists, but I didn't notice any SIGCOV.  is an issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:SYSTEMICBIAS)