Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShivLing of Makkeshwar

ShivLing of Makkeshwar

The belief that the Black Stone is a Shiva lingam seems to be held by ONE person, who has been attempting to enshrine it in WP's Kaaba article for many months. Balked, this person is now setting up his own article where he can claim that the Black Stone is in fact a Hindu idol.

As risible and unsupported as it is, this belief would be notable if many people held it; however, we have no evidence that anyone save a lone kook takes this position.

I would put this article up for an expedited deletion on "patent nonsense" grounds, but I'm not sure that it would appear as patent nonsense to everyone. I'm being cautious. Please vote to delete this article. Zora 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a valid article that discusses the ShivLing. There are many references to it and many historians discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookwormUK (talk • contribs) 11:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Important Request One of the sources listed on the page currently is a Brittanica page. Can someone please check and verify this? Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That Brittanica page describes lingam worship. It doesn't say anything about the Black Stone. Zora 08:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly right. The cite is employed in a highly deceptive fashion. Of course, EB does not claim that the Black Stone is a Shiva lingham. This would otherwise be the most infamous of charges.Timothy Usher 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Don't call people kooks. There are about 245 hits on google, (majority blogs) but Hindunet has it on there too. Its merely a conspiracy theory, though it is rooted in fact.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was considering putting up the article for deletion myself, but I saw that the concept of ShivLing seems to be a legitimate concept. Nevertheless, the article can be recreated at ShivLing (or something like that) as an NPOV article, but in its current state it's completely POV and borders on OR and it seems as if it's easier just to start anew. Actually, if there's an article at lingam, there's no need for this to be recreated. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable... article appears to be an original research free for all. (→Netscott) 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. Bucketsofg✐ 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Keep - I have heard this in scholarly works, and really if the Davinci code can get its own article, and UFO's, why not the Shivaling? Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this seems to be all original research. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional delete - meaning that if the Shivling of Makkeshwar is claimed to be the Black Stone, then delete; however, if the Shivling refers to something else for which evidence exists, then possibly keep.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mpatel (talk • contribs) .
• Keep - The ShivLing is a valid encyclopaedia entry and is relevant article in all encyclopaedia's. It is even mentioned in the Enyclopaedia Britannica. Religious beliefs claiming that it does not exist is not a valid reason for deleting the article.BookwormUK 11:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Where is it mentioned in Encyclopedia Brittanica? Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of the sources appear to be editorial on POV in nature; only 84 ghits [1], and zero hits at gnews [2]. Unless there's something I'm missing, this doesn't seem to have much of a footprint. Luna Santin 11:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Google hits on the exact phrase, "ShivLing of Makkeshwar" are exactly one blog. The putrid smell of "original research" is rife with this article. (→Netscott) 13:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Google searching with the exact phrase is not a good measure of its notability. Shivling itself is a redirect to Lingam and there are a number of other spellings for the word (Shivalinga, Shivaling, Shivalingam etc.) Also the "of" is some cases could be an "in." Personally, I think it is neither OR nor patent nonsense. It is just a controversial belief which may or may not have enough supporters to be considered notable enough on Wikipedia. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure I have read and heard that many Hindus believe that the Black Stone is a Shiv Ling. In that sense it may be notable enough but there is not enough sources on the internet to justify this. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Keep: The pagans are also described as the fire worshippers and I know for a fact that hindus also worship "agni" ie fire. The pagans used to worship idols as well which were liek the hindu idols. Muhammads' tribe used to have the black stone which they used to worship and also note pre-muhammad allah was the name given to the moon; as moon was also worshipped (allah comes from the word al-illah meaning the highest deity to be worshipped) also hindus worship the moon and sun... moon is chandr.. and sun is surya... there are ppl who worship the sun are called surya-vanshi and ppl who worship the moon are called chandr-vanshi (belonging to the lieneage of moon )... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DE1 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Account created 09:44, 11 August 2006; only edit outside user, user talk, and this AfD is to target of this AfD. --cesarb 17:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  PS: shivaLing is a black stone that is worshipped all over india..remains of same shivalings are also found all across pakistan, afghanistan and iran. Since these places were once under hindu's; but was later taken over by the mugals. Who mutalated and broke everything that symbolises any other religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DE1 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep* I've heard of this too. It's extremely possible that blackstone is a shivling. Article needs more sources. Arabs weren't always muslims. They were also pagans.--D-Boy 18:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep* keep it as a kind of conspiracy theory like Nine Unknown Men or eight immortals. remove any reference to the particular stone, if it is causing dissent. anyways, in support of common consensus. we have article where Gautam Buddha is suggested to be a Islamic Prophet. although it has been rejected by quite a few historians. Link is [3]nids 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Pending Scholarly Confirmation* It's possible that blackstone is a Shivalingam. Since the Shivalingam was also worshipped by cultures in Eastern Europe and Central Asia in the distant past (& I believe by some Romani people even today, prob'ly why Hitler tried to kill 'em) it is entirely possible that it got absorbed into pre-Islamic Arab pantheon. This is speculation tho and should not be mentioned unless scholarly support is there. It's linkage with Classical Hinduism in South Asia is distant, and should be qualified as such, that's all.Netaji 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment There is no scholarly information, which is why the article should be deleted. If there ever is, then a new article can be created or the information included into Black Stone, but I severely doubt that ever happening, seeing as Hinduism never spread as far as Mecca, where inhabitants worshipped either Christianity, Judaism, or Semitic gods (both Northwestern and Southern) rather than Hinduism, which never spread that far west. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Completely agree with the above. I've tried to find some reliable sources regarding this and the fact is that there are none. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Then the article should qualify that questionable sources say that the Shivalingam is just that. Since a claim has been made (by P.N Oak, a questionable "scholar" I'll admit) to that effect, the article should be kept, but qualified that there is no objective proof that the Shivalingam is a Shivalingam. Bear in mind that certain fanatic elements here are interested in keeping the "purity" of their race/religion from "Kaffirism" and, in the interests of that goal, would cheerily staunch the reporting of any issue, however controvertial it may be, that even suggests that there may have been a proto-Hindu connection with pre-Islamic Arabia (after all, similar elements wiped out a lot of the knowledge of pre-Islamic Arabia for precisely the same reason).Netaji 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Being an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I can assure you I have no ulterior motives for deleting this article. The fact is, that if the theory is only proposed by a few fringe authors, then it's probably not worthy of inclusion unless that fringe theory becomes a popular fringe theory (which its google hits don't show) or accepted by the mainstream. Unfortunately Rumsfeld's rhetoric isn't going to help you out. Just because there's an absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence, but until there's evidence of "a proto-Hindu connection with pre-Islamic Arabia" proposed/verified by a verifiable source, there's no need for an article on this on wikipedia. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom.Timothy Usher 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. -- Szvest 22:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now. The article is pretty small anyway and probably needs a change of name as well. So delete for now, maybe the supporters should look for some sources, find them and prepare a decent sized article in their userspace or something before putting it on Wikipedia. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Pending notable sources being used to support the title. His Excellency... 01:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)