Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swargadwari

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. AfD withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swargadwari

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

Topic does not appear to be notable. There is only one cited source and there are few google sources http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Swargadwari&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=.org&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images . I propose the article be deleted or sources be added. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swargadwari is one of Nepal's top dozen or so pilgrimage sites. [1] It is significant enough that a cable car is being built there [2]

I originally started the article as a place to put a substantial amount of material someone else had appended to an article on Pyuthan District. I didn't think so much material on the pilgrimage site belonged in the district article, which had a variety of other subject areas to cover. At that time I couldn't find anything very scholarly in the way of references, but Googling it (and Sworgadwari -- one of several alternative transliterations -- got over a thousand hits. The single reference I provided was more or less representative, so I thought it was sufficient for the time being.

I beg to differ with your assessment that the topic isn't notable. Outside of the Kathmandu and Lumbini (birthplace of Buddha) areas, sites of cultural and historic interest in Nepal are extremely under-documented, particularly in English. Perhaps I just didn't do it justice.

When I googled "Swargadwari" I got "about 4,000" hits. "Swargdwari Nepal" gave me 947 and "Sworgadwari Nepal" -- alternate transliteration -- got 220. LADave (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed the ref tags from the links so they can be easily viewed by other editors in the discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable pilgrimage site. This is a newspaper article about it. Books [3], [4] confirm it as a popular pilgrimage destination. I suspect there are non-English sources to be found as well. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to be on the official Nepal tourism site [5]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD withdrawn I have been convinced that the subject is notable. Request withdrawn. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and early close, since nominator has withdrawn the request. First Light (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2010 (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.