Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muktabai Temple

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. I unfortunately have to dismiss all "keep" opinions as contrary to policies and guidelines with community-wide support. The argument for keeping is basically "it's a 12th-century temple", but even leaving aside that this is not grounds for notability according to our guidelines, this discussion has raised serious concerns about how old this building actually is and what if anything about it can be verified. These concerns have not been rebutted by references to reliable sources. WP:V, a core policy, therefore mandates deletion. Systemic bias is regrettable, but verifiability is not negotiable. Sandstein 17:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muktabai Temple

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article created by a blocked sock User:Research_Voltas. Article is stub at best, and should be deleted per WP:BMB anyway. {Update on 8/16: It is not a 12th century building as some have commented below; it is 50 years old at most; WP:NBUILD doesn't apply. Additionally, no SIGCOV.} GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 16:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 16:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 16:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 16:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 16:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the article has been edited by other people, it is still a stub. GhtheANg (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is completely irrelevant per WP:STUB and not any reason to delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are seven references already cited. While it is difficult to assess them without knowing the local language, they do appear to be discussing this temple. Per WP:PRESERVE, this article should not be deleted simply because it is a stub. The nominator cites WP:BMB, but that policy does not appear to call for the deletion of good articles created by blocked users. So I don't feel that a valid reason for deletion has been given. Commenter above me was blocked earlier today as being a sockpuppet. NemesisAT (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable temple, referenced article. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly a redirect to Muktabai) not every place of worship is noteworthy, WP:NPLACE. All but one of the sources in the article fail to provide any indication of notability of the temple *per se*, they simply provide trivial mentions confirming the temple exists and its location. The one article actually about the temple is a short three sentence piece announcing a grant for spending on renovations at the temple; it cannot be considered WP:SIGCOV. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Goldsztajn's rationale given above. Fails WP:SIGCOV Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can anyone summarize the sources - discuss their reliability and whether they meet SIGCOV? Ping User:Andrew Davidson. Isn't this something the rescue project can look at? Or is it just focused on dogs and Western artifacts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, please see User:Goldsztajn's comment above for details on the sources. The refs are tangential & trivial. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 17:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but even if the is no SIGCOV (and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an issue here), if the claim about this being a 12th century building is true, this may meet WP:NBUILD ("officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available"). I am saying may as no such information has been presented, and sadly, the keep votes here are so far pretty useless (WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:KEEPPER, sigh). Still, the odds are that whatever country this temple is in (the article fails to specify that... I am guessing India based on our DELSORT, sigh) it is likely on some register of historical monuments. Can anyone try to confirm this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More substantive source analysis would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Redtigerxyz. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanjoydey33 WP:KEEPPER riding on WP:ITSNOTABLE (of User:Redtigerxyz). I'd like to see this saved, but please do better with your "arguments", both of you. TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per my rationale above, which is: a 12th century temple is probably meeting NBUILD. However, I acknowledge that no reference for this was provided, and I am also AGFing the 12th century claim here since the sources are not in English. A quick query on GBooks and GScholar confirms the entity exists, but I didn't notice any SIGCOV. WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one source in the article actually mentions the age, which claims the temple is 400 years old. I could not verify the claim anywhere else. Youtube footage of the temple suggests very little that one would be hard pressed to claim is more than 50 years old. What I suspect dates from the 12th Century is the tomb. No one denies the existence of this structure, the problem is the lack of reliable sourcing available to demonstrate this structure built on Muktabai's tomb is notable. Given the history of colonialism and the worldwide expropriation of artifacts, ironically, systemic bias is far less of a problem regarding subject matter of this nature. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AGF as to its age, a temple this old clearly meets notability standards. India is not good at listing its heritage buildings. Per WP:SYSTEMIC, in any country that is, this would clearly be listed and meet WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a 12th century temple is clearly notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have fixed a mistake on the page. A category said it was 12th-century but per User:Goldsztajn, the temple is likely 400 years old. There are 51 pages in the category for 12th-century Hindu temples but only 13 for the 18th century, so the argument that "it's old so it's notable" is weakened. --Coolperson177 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I skimmed the sources relying on google translate. this is the only one that's substantive as far as I can see, and even this isn't really about the temple. I have yet to see evidence from a reliable source that it dates to the 12th century. I could be persuaded if more sources are found, but I was unable to find any. Several "keep" arguments are regrettably not grounded in policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:56, 19 August 2021 (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.