Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mata Rani Bhatiyani

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. Article has already been moved to Rani Bhatiyani. Michig (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Rani Bhatiyani

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello. No one is disrespecting the author's religious feelings, but they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:NOTESSAY and Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources about the subject. Unless someone can identify some good sources, I have to assume that it fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No sources. No indication of notability. Seems to be primary OR so WP:NOTESSAY. Cowlibob (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my view on this. Keep and move to Rani Bhatiyani based on source 1 and 4 that Redtiger has identified. Needs significant rewrite to be encyclopaedic and whoever does it has to be careful as it seems there was a queen (referred to in source 2 and 3) with the same name who I'm unsure is connected to the deity. @Redtigerxyz:, are you up for rewriting this article so it becomes encyclopaedic? You're pretty much an expert on this kind of article. It probably only needs a stub. Cowlibob (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob , Davey2010, It is rewritten. She was a historical queen who was transformed into a goddess after committing sati; a trend observed in that region. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Thanks for rewriting. No objections to keeping this article now. Cowlibob (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Rani Bhatiyani definitely needs a rewrite. But the local deity/temple seems notable. [1], [2], [3], [4].--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those who don't have any knowledge of Hindu culture , kindly don't propose the deletion of this article ; keep

Keep

Move to Rani Bhatiyani. User:Redtigerxyz has found enough sources to establish notability. The sources call her Rani Bhatiyani.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To put it bluntly it needs WP:BLOWNUP & rewrote, Whilst sources have been found to establish notability - The article is pretty awful and I can't see anyone fixing it (If I knew anything about the subject I would try myself). –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ignore all that bollox, Redtigerxyz has done a brilliant job in fixing it (Thanks Redtigerxyz!), Anyway no reason for deletion now :). –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - dear all.. U should first have knowledge about Hinduism and it's various aspects before jumping to conclusions... If someone proposes to delete the page about Jesus Christ , how will u feel, likewise mata rani bhatiyani is a goddess of rural India and is believed to be an incarnation of goddess Durga ... If u still want to delete this article , please go ahead , this would mean Wikipedia is biased against Hindu religion and I will make sure more and more Indians know this fact that how Wikipedia is treating an article related to religious sentiments of the Hindus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ompalsbhati (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not disrespecting your religion. All articles on wikipedia need to be reliably sourced and have shown notability which I think can be achieved with a rewrite based on Redtiger's sources. Cowlibob (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2014 (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.