Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathiababa Ka Sthan,Vrindavan


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Kathiababa Ka Sthan,Vrindavan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

NN building. Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, India,  and Uttar Pradesh. UtherSRG (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: It reads like an advertisement, and all the provided sources consisting of routine updates. Additionally, there are numerous sentences in the history section that clearly violate the NPOV.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛  𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜  16:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Wikipedia article is a machine translation of a Bengali-language Wikipedia article, which also exists on Hindi-language Wikipedia; they have the same citations - the English-language version has them in the same places as the Hindi-language version - the Bengali-language version has them in different places. None of the nine citations explicitly support any of the content they are cited for in the English-language version of the article.  The topic of the citations is the Vrindavan Kumb Mela - which is sort-of the topic of Section 3 of the Wikipedia article - though it is difficult to relate the content of Section 3 to the content of the articles cited.  Maybe there are good sources on the temple in Bengali or Hindi, but clearly whoever wrote the Bengali and Hindi versions of the article did not find any. The best available English-language source I found was user-generated content in Tripadvisor, which confirmed that the temple exists, said what it is like and gave its address.  We cannot base the article on that. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2023 (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.