Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semliya

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Consensus is that subject is notable for inclusion. Disputes regarding article content can be tackled on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 09:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semliya

edit
Semliya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be a notable place. Just a small village that doesn't have many google hits and there's no indication of much significance in the article. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per [WP:GEOLAND]]. Judging by satellite maps, this is a small village about 4 kilometres east of Namli with perhaps a few hundred inhabitants, but it does seem to get just about enough gazetteer coverage to allow for an article, though a mention/redirect in an article on its local area might be enough. The previously Hindi part of the article has now been mostly translated into English by the article creator - this all seems to refer to a Jain temple which is highly likely to be notable if sources can be found to back up the claims made (if not, the material on it will largely need to be removed). Having said that, the village does not seem to be the only place called Semliya even within its area - there appears to be another only about 30 kilometres further north. And there are at least a couple of Jain temples not that far away that are definitely easier to document than the one detailed here. PWilkinson (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per WP:GEOLAND. The Article is a right and correct description of events happened in Semliya.The temple was quite famous in medieval age however today many few people know about it.It has been only 5 years since the pilgrims have regularly started to visit the magnificent temple from states of Madhya Pradesh,Rajasthan and Gujrat.This is a precious source of information for the people of Jain community. Such articles should not be discouraged. You cannot get evidence for genuineness of a place importance by just Googling it.The other couple of temples near Semliya by google maps were probably Bhopavar,Vibrod and Maksi and they are mentioned in the article as well and are combinedly called panchtirthi including Semliya.The place has a lot more to offer if you actually visit it.I strongly recommended to keep this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenilworthWhisp (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC) — KenilworthWhisp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I encourage you you read WP:VNT. "Right" or "correct" is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. Notability and evidence of it from citations are the standard for inclusion. Even if the actual place has a lot to offer, as you say, it should not be kept if it doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. Judging by the lack of citations in the article and lack of Google results, it doesn't appear to have significant coverage. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a webpage reference for your perusal. Please read it carefully.It will tell you about the history and importance of Semliya in brief.The information matches with my page.I hope it will do.Thanks!Anmol Pagaria (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • A single source with a single paragraph of information for an over 800-word page is nowhere near enough. Most of the article is still unsourced. Also, if a tourist guide is the best source out there for this place, that only gives the article all the more reason to be deleted. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a place for promotion. The current tone of the article reads highly promotional, and I think it would need to be completely rewritten from scratch for it to have any chance of being encyclopedic. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the only source out there for now.That is why I tried to share detailed information on Wikipedia platform and since the information is in detail and so far unique(on Internet)it will be hard to verify.Besides i don't think anyone is looking to do a PhD on this topic and hence need to verify every minute information(It's all correct though...Alas!).I politely disagree on the point that article is written in promotional tone.It just gives information about travel and room convinience available within temple premises.They have been included because I thought it will be helpful for visitors to plan their trip in such a remote place with limited amenities. I have no personal gain in favouring the trust.The trust belongs to temple itself and gives room and food facilities to visitors for a very nominal charge even that for maintanence(for the service and sake of visitors).I don't think a 2 line mention of trust services makes the whole article promotional and hence does not need to be rewritten from a scratch ;). People objecting content perhaps need to read it again this time carefully. All the Sadhus-Sadhvis have nothing to do with temple affairs.I've mentioned their names because it's a common practice in jain community to give names of the Sadhus-Sadhvis stayed in Choumasa time of year in the temple. Anmol Pagaria (talk)16:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
      • Wikipedia isn't the place to publish original information. The information may very well be true, but for it to be included it must all be verifiable. There cannot be any original research in any Wikipedia articles. All information on Wikipedia must already exist in another reliable source. Your statement that the source currently in the article is the only source out there only strengthens the claim that the subject is not notable. If the place gets more media coverage in the future and notability can be demonstrated, it would be worthy of inclusion. However, it doesn't meet that requirement at this time. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I take back my earlier claim about the article needing a fundamental rewrite. There is non-promotional content, but the page does still read like a travel guide. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND ie. its a Populated, legally recognized place, here is a link to a 2011 census - [1], also not sure about nom's rationale - "Just a small village" - there goes a few (hundred?) thousand articles, " there's no indication of much significance" - Article content does not determine notability, although Eventhorizon51 needs to be aware of WP:BURDEN in that the temple info can/should? be deleted (or at least moved to the talkpage?) until appropriate sources are found. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:13, 22 July 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Semliya&oldid=1138351399"