Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pimpleshwar Mahadev (Saldi)

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. Ultimately, on Wikipedia notability comes usually from the existence of third-party sources satisfying certain criteria (WP:SIGCOV) that discuss the subject, and based on the discussion here that is not the case for this article Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pimpleshwar Mahadev (Saldi)

[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)

No reliable sources. It seems that this Hindu temple is not notable. The article is possibly created by a devotee and includes a lot of irrelevant information. The article fails notability. Nizil (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Κeep. It needs tidying and sourcing. Significance comes from having a stream as the focus of the temple rather than the usual Shiva Lingam, and the unique Bili Patra Puja. The 50 acre campus points to a substantial complex of buildings, with many visiting pilgrims. Sources I can find in English are mostly to travel sites but there will be others in Gujurati. Mccapra (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. Agree with Mccapra. - Ret.Prof (talk)
Comment: The text, created by a couple of quite dedicated contributors, reads like pure original research. The Keep suggestions are difficult to understand, coming on as prersonal preferences more than anything. And all the cited sources are unadulterated from mentions of the temple. -The Gnome (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability comes from in-depth coverage in reliable sources, not from size or "having a stream as the focus". Relisting in the hope that the discussion becomes more policy-based.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—with the caveat that there may be some foreign language sources I cannot adequately interpret, there's absolutely nothing that demonstrates notability in English, and with my best attempt at searching for sources you get stuff like this, which all come from Indian Express Group papers but do not seem to stand up as rigorous coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn’t suggest that having a stream afforded notability. I suggested that this gave it particular significance. Mccapra (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Still believe we should Keep. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough references from independent reliable sources - doesn't meet WP:GNG - if the stream feature is unique, perhaps it deserves a mention in the Hindu temple article, but not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent reliable sources to show notability. Having an unusual feature may be a reason that it should be notable, but that doesn't mean that it is. --RL0919 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 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.