Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudheshwar Mahadev

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. A somewhat ... spirited discussion, but after reading it it seems like nobody has actually presented WP:SIGCOV-complying sources for this temple and thus no evidence that the topic is actually notable is presented. It seems like the problem might be that not everybody is talking about the same subject; perhaps if people plan to restore the article they should specify up front what it is about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dudheshwar Mahadev[edit]

[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)

Not notable. All sources are primary. Fails WP:GNG. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it stands right now deserves to be deleted per WP:TNT and someone needs to write it from the scratch. The article is full of original research linked to primary sources. Currently the article gives an impression that it is temple in Gujarat while some lines mention it belonging to Himachal Pradesh and the refs are from a primary source in Ghaziabad UP. It is possible that a temple with this name exist at all three locations. But only the one in Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh appears to be notable as per these refs[1] [2] --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray Dudheshwar literally means God of Milk and in only Ahmedabad, 3-4 temples including one famous of Epical Dadhichi Rishi exists. So, temple of this name exists everywhere in India. This temple of Bhat is not notable. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169 yes I feel you are right. The article on Ghaziabad temple can be written though, since that is notable. I have no concerns if someone in future wants to write an article on the temple in Ghaziabad with the same name. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable topic, and shouldn't be too hard to properly reference. I notice that the article was never tagged but taken immediately to AFD. Just put relevant tags on the article, and eventually someone will clean it up.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: how it’s notable topic? How it passes GNG?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 23:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:DBigXray asserts it is notable implicitly by their !vote of citing wp:TNT, which should be interpreted as a "Keep" vote. See wp:TNTTNT (an essay to which i contributed), for a number of reasons why it is bad to delete an article on a known-to-be-notable topic only to re-create it. I agree 4meter4, it should be tagged for development, and/or developed right now. But wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. So, simply Keep it. --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Are you serious? This article is misleading. It mentions three Indian states namely HP, UP, Gujarat. Do you even know what’s distance between them? It’s like making article on church situated in New york (lead), Chicago (infobox) and Texas(history). This article must be deleted because it is nonsense. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, i am serious. One or more of these are apparently notable. It is indicated above that the article should maybe be edited to focus on the one in Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. I don't know, if these are closely related then there could be one article covering several; if not, then split out separate articles and convert this to a disambiguation page. Sure, go ahead and do that. --Doncram (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 15:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 and Doncram both of you owe an explanation for !voting the way you have !voted above. I can understand why User:Harshil169 is shocked to see the way you two have !voted. You seem to have misunderstood my comment and are wrongly !voting based on it. None of you have produced any source that can establish that the temple in Gujarat or Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) is a notable one. The article is about a non notable temple in Gujarat and this was rightly AfDed by Harshil. I understand that there may be language or cultural barriers for folks that are not from India, so for them here are the main points.

The article is about a temple in Bhat, Daskroi village in Gujarat. That temple is not notable. if someone believes it is notable, then reliable source for that will be needed here.
The article also mentions a temple in Kangra (Himachal Pradesh). That temple is not notable. if someone believes it is notable, then reliable source for that will be needed here.
There is a temple with the same name at another location in Gaziabad Uttar Pradesh. But this article at AfD is not about it.
These three temples are not related to each other in any way, they are named similarly as they belong to the same diety. There is no franchise in India for this diety, like there are churches in US or UK. so the dab will not work here (not unless someone finds at least 2 notable temples with the same name).

If someone wants to make this article about the notable temple in Gaziabad, then he would need to rewrite it from scratch. There is nothing in the article at present to WP:PRESERVE. Hence I voted to Delete. Now I see Harshil has removed all the unsourced claims, but the article is still about a non notable temple, and unless someone decides to write another article at the same location, it cannot be kept. I would request both 4meter4 and Doncram to change their !vote to Delete or present hard evidence to support a Keep vote here.DBig Xrayᗙ 17:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to help build an encyclopedia? Or trying to run up some tally of articles you deleted? Just fix the article one way or another. Use sensible judgment. --Doncram (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you here to discuss the temple article or my AfD history. Doncram, at this AfD here we are discussing about the article. It would be useful for the discussion if you present reliable sources in support of your keep vote instead of attacking me. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You pinged me and were calling me out to respond, and you don't like the response. Whatever. --Doncram (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you keep talking off topic, so I reckon, you could not find anything to support a keep vote for this article. DBig Xrayᗙ 19:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still strong debate in both directions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2 weeks have passed and I would note that no evidence has been presented so far by anyone to claim that the subject of the article as it stands right now is notable to have an article. None of the content (which is basically WP:OR) is fit to WP:PRESERVE--DBig Xrayᗙ 07:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, the prior references were (1) to a festival in celebration of Shiva, not to this temple, (2) to a different temple in a different Indian state published in an WP:SPS, (3) a prayer in the same SPS, and (4) to a guru at the same temple in (2) again published in that SPS. None of this even approaches WP:GNG but there references in RS to this as a place of pilgrimage and tourism in Himachal Pradesh: [3], [4], [5]. This just squeaks over the bar for GNG notability and we determine if the subject is notable, not the article in its current state. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn appreciate your efforts but these 3 refs that you posted above are all about a temple named "Kaleshwar Mahadev Temple" that is an altogether different temple, why are you posting them in an AfD for an article about Dudheshwar Mahadev. The names are clearly different, how could you miss that ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:15, 19 November 2019 (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.