Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patit Pavan Mandir


 * 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 ‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ keep. NYC Guru (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Patit Pavan Mandir

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

Not a notable temple.

The only cited source is "Veer Savarkar" by Dhananjay Keer who himself said that he wrote this book by relying over content provided him to by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar himself. Editorkamran (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm adding more sources. Hold on! -- Kartik Mistry talk 14:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep - I have added one more source, meets WP:GNG. Offline sources can also be found.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛  𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜  14:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Maharashtra.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep - Added source etc -- Kartik Mistry talk 16:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: More review of newly added sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic exists but even the newly added sources don't discuss the subject outside its founder. See WP:NOTINHERITED. At best a redirect to main subject (Savarkar) can be sole alternative. Dympies (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Added sources passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that none of the sources discuss the temple without providing more significant coverage to Savarkar. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The article now includes reliable sources, meeting the criteria of Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG). Saurabh  Saha  08:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources provide passing mention to the subject at best. The coverage of the temple outside foundation by Savarkar is nil. I would be fine with a redirect as well. CharlesWain (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dympies. The vague hand waves of passing GNG are misleading. desmay (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. This is a historically significant template that is now a museum (which you can confirm on travel sites like trip advisor). The article needs work and better sources, the information needs to be verified better, but the people who can read the sources can't write the article, and the people who can write the article can't read the sources, and when it comes to something clearly significant but poorly sourced due to language... I lean to keep.  There is a whole bit about religion and ceremonies I don't comprehend well enough to attempt to write.
 * I do want to convey to editors here to stop adding any reference with only a passing mention - we need sources that provide information for expanding the article. If they don't... it's not actually a source that provide "in depth coverage" - which is what the other editors here are looking for.  My original comments are below. Denaar (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has a an article in another language that is fairly long. This is a source that is in depth in English they quote, though it's a commerical/tourist organization.    However, the other article has a bold claim - that this was the first temple built for untouchables, which if you're familiar with India's caste system, seems to make it stand out as important.  I worry we're running into "Non-english hard  to source" territory on this one. The other article is Ratnagiri by Walter Smith, it links to a locked page.  But I found another article he wrote about temples, haven't had a chance to read it.   Denaar (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * CommentFound an alternative spelling: "The Patitpavan Mandir at Ratnagiri is a standing testimony to his indefatigable commitment to social reform." This in an in depth article about how this temple was built, and it also states it was the first temple built for untouchables.  If Veer Savarkar's article wasn't already so long, I'd suggest a merge to there, but I'm surprised it's not mentioned there already under Restricted freedom in Ratnagiri. Another site .  It seems like a culturally significant temple. Is is contested in some way - seen as a legend and not a true story?  Denaar (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Found a source, "Veer Savarkar and Patitpavan Temple" - in depth, focused on the temple itself - this is the kind of source I was looking for; published by a news organization, has an author, etc. Between this and the rest; I feel we've got a strong group of sources to expand the article now.  Denaar (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update to Merge - User @Editorkamran insists the only in depth source we have on the topic is unreliable, therefore - the topic should be merged with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar as the topic has not notability on it's own - it should be mentioned in context with Savarkar. Denaar (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update to Keep - I realized the person who removed all my sources... is the person who nominated this article for deletion. The first two articles don't translate well; but it's a celebrity that posted about the temple and the papers take them to task for talking about it in the wrong way and not knowing their history, I can't follow - but this temple is clearly SUPER IMPORTANT so some people... and an embarrassment to others.  I don't understand enough of the culture to follow it.  Denaar (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not entirely happy with the sourcing to establish notability. I agree there are issues regarding coverage of the temple outside coverage of Savarkar. However, I lean towards keep given that some sourcing focuses on the temple mainly, how long the temple has stood, and that it does appear to feature on places to visit.OsFish (talk) 10:32, 7 July 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.