Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gupteshwar Mahadev, Udaipur


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Gupteshwar Mahadev, Udaipur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non notable temple from India. No significant coverage in reliable sources. All the coverage is limited to "touring websites", nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:NGEO, and WP:GNG. — usernamekiran (talk)  18:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep this newspaper article indicates that it is the site of a popular local festival. Plus, any 17th century public building that is still around now is almost certainly notable to some degree.  If it were in a Western country it would likely be on some kind of historic buildings register.  "Touring websites" might not be considered reliable sources, but if it is a tourist destination, that too points to notabiity even if the information on the web pages themselves cannot be used. SpinningSpark 19:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well; traditionally, every temple observes this type of festival. It is usually called as "Yatra". Here is the article: Zatra. There are lots of temples in any town. So it is natural for every town to have one big yatra once in an year. Whatever coverage I found, the festival of this temple seems to be one of the smallest one. Nothing notable about this particular festival. Regarding the date of construction, around half of the temples in India are older than 18th/17th century. Nothing sets this temple apart. In this case notability shouldn't be assumed as long as there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. — usernamekiran (talk)  20:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Every temple observes this type of festival? Half of the temples in India are older than 18th/17th century? Well, perhaps they are all notable.  Those arguments strike me as a kind of reverse WP:OTHERSTUFF.  That is, "we don't have articles on all these other temples, so why should we have an article on this one?" SpinningSpark 19:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

*Keep. We keep hearing a lot about this place in local as well as national newspapers. It is mostly in Hindi, which is why probably it is not turning up in google search results: 2012-13 Events, 2016, 2017, More_2017, 2018-Documentary, and few other notability articles should help.Vishal0soni (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC) —SOCKSTRIKE MT TrainDiscuss 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to give people a chance to evaluate the sources suggested by. It would be useful to have some native Hindi speakers help with this.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep — Passes WP:GNG. Has significant coverage from Rajasthan Patrika [(1)] and Dainik Bhaskar [(2)]. There's also citations which provided. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 16:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.