Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhakeshwari Mata Temple, Kumortuli

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 merge to Kumortuli and redirect. Rationale: The !vote for redirection was policy based. There were four keep !votes. Two of these were immediately discounted—one which confused the topic with something entirely different and another which asserted it had to be kept because it was not a company—and of the other two, the article creator's rationale was rebuffed with multiple policies. Finally, there was one "Weak" keep. This, unfortunately, was insufficient to counter the !votes against keeping the article in its current form, and the nominator is not averse to merging and redirecting. Since DBigXRay has already moved the necessary material for the merge, redirection follows. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 13:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhakeshwari Mata Temple, Kumortuli

[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)

The entire article is actually written based on a single paragraph, which is from an article in Anandabazar Patrika and covers a variety of interesting flavors of the city (and their backstories), in an entertainment supplement.

All other pieces cover a different temple of the same name in Bangladesh.

Also, the line in lead:-- Now, the temple of Kolkata is quite deserted as most of the people are not aware of its historical backdrop and importance can't be sourced to the Scroll piece, as is supposed to be.

Pathetic prose quality which resembles machine translation from the corresponding Bengali sources about an entirely different establishment.

I can't find anything resembling significant coverage on the issue, either.∯WBG^converse 09:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winged Blades of Godric can you link the "entirely different establishment", you quoted. It may help the AfD. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, umm......Machine translation from a variety of Bengali sources that covered the one in Dhaka and from the sole one, that covered the subject.I am sorry, if I was not clear enough. ∯WBG^converse 13:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kumortuli which is the settlement/neighbourhood where this temple is located. As is generally done for churches/temple/prominent building articles not individually notable. This temple is not individually notable, as I could not find reliable sources covering the Kolkata temple with a WP:SIGCOV. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, Merge or redirect? If we start merging bits of info about all temples in a locality to the article about the place, well.......

On a side-note, I guess Now, the temple of Kolkata is quite deserted as most of the people are not aware of its historical backdrop might be real true, from an OR perspective:-) ∯WBG^converse 13:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced OR can be discounted while merging. Whether we like it or not, The settlement articles does need a section on religion, social gatherings and festivals. So it is not an unreasonable suggestion to merge it to the settlement article. Merge and Redirect, is what I meant, to be specific. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and copied the content to Kumortoli as it was needed there anyway, irrespective of the result of this AfD. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep: This idol have a historical significance, and that's why leading newspaper from west bengal covered this topic (Saying because you quoted @WBG). And original temple of this idol is national temple of Bangladesh. So it's importance is cleared. But due to some reason original idol was taken to kolkata, and similar temple was build up here. So considering notability and historical importance this article must be kept. And there is no reason to redirect or merge. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 14:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: শক্তিশেল (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Keep: There is coverage in multiple sources as cited in the references, which establishes the notability of the subject. Pathetic prose quality and dispute over one line the lede can't be the criteria for deletion. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BengaliHindu, All other pieces cover a different temple of the same name in Bangladesh.Thus, please provide sources that grant significant coverage to the subject.∯WBG^converse 04:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is closely associated with another temple in Bangladesh. This is why those sources are relevant and hence cited. There are already enough citations to establish notability. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The nom may be right that there is some misuse of sources going on. However, some of the articles on the Bangladesh temple (the sacredsites source for instance) do confirm that the original idol was taken from the temple during partition to Kumortuli. The Kumortuli temple thus does have some historic sgnificance, although sourcing is still weak. SpinningSpark 21:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A one-line trivial mention in a source (which doesn't even mention the name of the temple) and a paragraph in some miscellaneous reporting, doesn't confer any notability.∯WBG^converse 04:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarilly robust arguments from the article creator ——SerialNumber54129 13:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Firstly, ...a paragraph in some miscellaneous reporting, doesn't confer any notability... I don't know about any guideline like that, please enlighten me @WBG, Secondly, in this article, there are two district part, one history of idol and another one is History of reestablishing. And more than one references are accordingly confer the fact separately. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 06:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

শক্তিশেল, see WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE.∯WBG^converse 07:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also read WP:SIGCOV which states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. and Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.Best,∯WBG^converse 07:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing User:Winged Blades of Godric's claim: To the admin and others, User:Winged Blades of Godric claims that ABP reported in a paragraph in some miscellaneous reporting. But fact is, this reporting is not like that. It's a unique reporting under a common categorized title "কলকাতা করচা" (kolkata korcha) where brief news about Kolkata's heritage fact are being reported. In any newspaper there be a sectional categorized title like Political, Sports, Regional, Advertisement, India, Foreign, etc. Similarly ABP, leading bengali newspaper, stylized and made sub-section to categorize. Like উত্তরবঙ্গ (North Bengal), দক্ষিণবঙ্গ) (South Bengal), কলকাতা (Kolkata), নদিয়া-মুর্শিদাবাদ (Nadia-Murshidabad) etc. Similarly, "কলকাতা করচা" is a sub sub sectional catagory. So don't be confused. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 08:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
শক্তিশেল, "কলকাতা করচা" is a sub sub sectional category, (as you state).

And, that sub-sub-section consists of 11 paragraphs on 11 miscellaneous aspects of trivia.

So, 1/11 th of a sub sub sectional category---you've surmised it quite well.

Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 08:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please be like a daily newspaper reader. Any reader can distinguish which one is in a paragraph in some miscellaneous reporting and what is sub catagory. Assumption is good but misleading is not welcomed. Thanks 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 09:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have my confirmation about the role played by your competency in English language, in these nonsensical replies.∯WBG^converse 10:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also this news in ABP surly passed as per guidelines. Because, 1. Independent: no third party reporting, 2. reliable sources: ABP is one one of the oldest newspaper (96 yrs +) , one can verify 3. Significance: already discussed. It's historical significance have no doubt. Dhakeswari Idol is not like any other idol. It's a idol "National temple of Bangladesh" , due to some problem it was taken to kolkata and reestablished. So once again I voted for keeping this article. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 08:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have certain problems in comprehending English.

ABP is a single source and the guidelines state that we need sources(I emphasize on the last s).Singular-plural; eh?!

Significant coverage means that the sources (I re-emphasize on the last s) cover the subject in a quite dedicated manner.Not, in 1/11 th of a sub sub sectional category (in your words).We don't need to delve into original research to highlight it's significance.∯WBG^converse 08:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, my friend is now collecting typo. Ha ha. Anyways, please don't fuss here, let others to think about this issue. You mentioned "how this article void the guidelines" and I already given all supporting data to keep this article. Let's admin to take this discussion to a conclusion. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 09:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a social media and your first line is unwelcome in a professional environment.∯WBG^converse 10:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a religion and God but not a promotion of a company. It must be there on Wikipedia.JPL549 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really isn't any significant coverage of this temple specifically. Dhakeshwari Temple already covers the history of the idol sans citations in the History section. This can be improved using these sources and ideally moved to a dedicated section.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I think you have missed the point. Dhakeswari Temple and Dhakeswari Mata Temple both are entirety different. First one is in Dhaka, Bangladesh and second one is in Kolkata. And significance of second temple is reestablishing of original idol which was taken from first temple due to some reason. Hope you got the point. Thanks 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using a bolded "oppose" with every comment you make. It makes it look like you are casting multiple !votes and the closer will have problems sorting it out. A bolded "comment" is the convention, or some other neutral term. In fact, please leave off with the overuse of bolding altogether. SpinningSpark 17:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your point. But it looks like the original temple with its replica idol continues to be notable while the Kolkata temple with the original idol is not. The Dhaka temple's article already contains most of the information mentioned in the Kolkata temple's article, albeit without citations. My suggestion is to merge the Kolkata temple's article into the Dhaka temple's article ideally within a dedicated section. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As per hindu Mythology, idol is very significant and if idol is about more than 800 years old then automatically it have a antique value. Similarly if it is in an established temple then automatically temple also get an antique value. In this case temple in Dhaka got that notability and it must have.

During partition of bengal, millions of Bengali hindu people came to West Bengal to protect their respect and their adorable deity. Dhakeswari idol also was shifted and re-established for that reason. So re-establishment of Dhakeswari idol in Kolkata is not only simple re-establishment. Rather history of partition of bengal also engaged with it. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 05:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a difficult one. I see that the text of this article also appears in the article Kumortuli (now - it may have been added recently), and in the Dhakeshwari Temple article. It seems to me that, while it may be possible to establish the notability of the original Dhakeswari Mata idol, and certainly of the original Dhakeshwari Temple site, it is more difficult to establish notability for the temple in Kumortuli. I am not at all clear on guidelines for notability of idols of deities, or of incarnations of deities. Does the antiquity of this idol (with the fact that it is still being worshipped), give it presumed notability? I don't know. If this separate article is deleted, I suggest that the Dhakeshwari Temple article section on History have a sub-section called Original idol, so that it's more prominent. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, yes, After the AfD was started I had gone ahead and copied the content to Kumortoli as it was needed there anyway, irrespective of the result of this AfD. yes, some of the idols are individually notable in India, but if we are going to keep this article for the idol, then the article title would need to be changed to reflect the same. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, in Dhakeshwari Temple article this fact (reestablishment) must be included. But this idol again an established idol (note: not a museum show piece Idol). So, it has a separate notability. Lots of idol were kept in Idian Museum or any other museum, but it is not in their category. Here this established idol again reestablished and still worshiped as before. Similarly replica is also Worshiped in Dhakeshwari Temple. So categorizing with every notable idol is not justified. As its an established idol like any other temple, e.g. Kalighat Temple, Dakhineswer Temple and many more, it must have separate wiki article. Not only this one, I think other Antique established idol must have separate wiki article.

Also Title (Dhakeshwari Mata Temple) will not confused in future in any other case. Because name of the temple is scripted on the board itself, like every temple have a name plate. So that will not make an issue in future.

Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 12:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:শক্তিশেল Articles are kept not simply because WP:ILIKEIT or You do. The Idol has to have individual notability. It needs to have its own Significant coverage in reliable mainstream media/books/journals. if you can produce that then this article can be renamed to the Idol article and kept. if not, then based on WP:NOTINHERITED, it is better to merge it with the Dhakeshwari Temple Dhaka (Idol Section) and Kumortoli settlement article. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This matter already discussed earlier. Please scroll up. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 13:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cant find such sources that prove individual notability of the idol. Can you share the diff of that comment ? User:Winged Blades of Godric was it ever provided ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source, This one individual Reporting. Ofcource it has an oposition but why its an individual reporting also discussed earlier. Thanks 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 13:17, 12 November 2018 (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.