Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu pilgrimage sites in India


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 00:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hindu pilgrimage sites in India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is completely unsourced, and, ultimately, I suspect it is unsourceable. As the person who removed the prod implied, nearly any site can be the target of a pilgrimage; as far as I know, anyone could designate any site with even slight religious connection as a valid sight for a "pilgrimage". If any natural site or religious construction can be a pilgrimage target, then this list means nothing (as it should just be a list of all natural and religious sites in India not explicitly connected to a non-Hindu religion). There is no value in a list without a clear definition and a clear way to get sources for it. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So Category:Hindu pilgrimage sites should also be deleted then? postdlf (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Solomon7968 23:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The notion that "any natural site or religious construction can be a pilgrimage target" is wrong however the article does needs some sourcing, preferably academic sources. Simple Google Books search throws up references:


 * Keep Article needs work, but as Solomon points out is is far from unsourceable. Besides Bhardwaj, which seems to be a standard reference in the area, other notables works are JH Dave's Immortal India (1960) and BC Law's Holy places of India (1940). See also this map in Schwartzberg's A historical atlas of India (1978), itself based on some of the listed sources. Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could either of you please tell me what the benefit is to keeping the current article? Since you are suggesting sources, and the article would need to use those sources, would it not be better to blank and restart once someone wants to take the effort to use those sources? It seems like, since everything currently in the article is unsourced, you'd effectively have to start over from scratch anyway. The information added now is really just the opinion of the article creator, not based on any sort of list. While deletion is not a substitute for cleanup, in some cases, it's by far and away the best, easiest, and most effective means of cleanup.
 * Or let me put this a different way: if the article survives deletion, I'll tag it as unsourced. Then, a week later I'll remove all unsourced entries, as we should, per WP:V. This will leave a blank article. Is this better than having no article at all? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:V doesn't entitle you to remove content just because it's presently unsourced, only that which cannot be sourced. See also WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are 150% wrong. Read WP:V again. "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. " This is a fundamental basis of Wikipedia, and how I have always edited on WIkipedia and how I will always continue to edit on Wikipedia, unless the rule were to change (in which case, I wouldn't edit any more, because the project would be useless). The option which can always choose is whether to tag unsourced data and let it sit around, then later remove it, or to simply remove it first. If I had faith that the contributions were accurate, I would consider tagging first. In this case, though, the article creator was blocked (by me) for adding spam links and numerous unsourced pieces of information (some non-neutral) to a wide ranging number of pages. I have no faith that the information is in any way accurate, or that the sites chosen are particularly noteworthy as pilgrimage sites (WP:UNDUE, part of WP:NPOV). Given that, 1 week is plenty of time to get the sources in. And all of the alleged information will all be in the history, all recoverable for any editor who wants to re-add it with sources. While I'm willing to accept a consensus that says that there's benefit in not deleting the article, there is absolutely no chance that I will accept someone arguing that unsourced material contributed by an unreliable editor of questionable ability and intent is okay to remain in Wikipedia. And I will insist on that up to the point of seeking blocks on any editor who intentionally re-adds said info (i.e., reverts to an unsourced revision). You may find this threatening; I find the very idea that we would intentionally leave unsourced information in Wikipedia threatening to everything we stand for. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I find all of that quite a non sequitur, given that no one was talking about not trusting this article because of issues particular to the author who created it. Try to lay out your premises up front next time to avoid misunderstanding about where you're coming from. postdlf (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: @Qwyrxian: Your rationale for deletion is lack of verifiability. Now i know that you have read more WP essays than i have and i think somewhere they must have written that stuff should be verifiable but not necessarily with an inline citation. Also while AfDing we expect editors to do some cursory checks and then bring it to AfD. Despite that you have come here for deletion which to me means that you want to explicitly see a certain thing in the article. And that thing is not clear to me. Do you want a inline web reference that specifically says "Place PQR is Hindu pilgrimage site"? Because blue links are already present in the article and when surfed through that you would have found all the verifiability that is sufficient enough to not raise a AfD. Moving ahead, in case we are unable to find such a specific source, will you consider blue link temple articles written in front of the place? Or is that also not acceptable to you? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 13:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The primary reason of the PROD was "In any event, I don't actually see how this list would be different than just a list of temples in India." As "the person who removed the prod", I want to clarify my comment "pilgrimage places in Hinduism includes places with temples, places with holy ponds/rivers, places where religious fairs are held". The comment just established IMO that temples are just a subset of pilgrimage sites. Notability is already established in many comments above. WP:RS exist for it. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article can be re-written, so no problem. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Solomon. As I've noted several times over the years at AfD, a topic is notable if multiple books have been published about the topic, per WP:SIGCOV.  AfD is not for clean-up. This is not so terrible that it needs to be started from scratch. A temple is not the same as a site of pilgrimage. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearian and Solomon. No good case for WP:TNT made, and no good argument that the topic is unverifiable. Even if "nearly any site can be the target of a pilgrimage", that certainly doesn't mean reliable sources can be found for "any site". postdlf (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2013 (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.