Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Parbat

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 was to keep as per Geoland. Particularly in light of Bluerasberry's contributions as to sourcing. Article still needs much work with citations, however. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Parbat

[edit]
Hari Parbat (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)

Major copyvio already meets WP:G12 from here [1]. Fails WP:GNG as it is non-notable and all sources are fake except the one from which it has been copied. Does not meet WP:BASIC and fails WP:RS. Promotional article WP:PROMO with no independent or WP:third-party sources. Markangle11 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<<<Difference of revisions when the article was nominated for AfD to review COPYVIO [2].>>>
Hello. For your information, WP:BASIC is for people. This Hari Parbat is not a person. Biwom (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thousands of sources exist for this massively famous place (you just need to click the blue links where it says Find sources above). Regards, Biwom (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are all blogs and discussion forums and do not qualify for WP:Reliable Source.Markangle11 (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The claimed copyvio affects at most one two-sentence section in a distinctly longer article, and the wording even of that section is sufficiently different to make the claim of copyvio doubtful. And, to me at least, the "fake" sources that the nominator condemns look far more likely, from the formats of their URLs, to be not particularly reliable tourist sites of five or six years ago that have since suffered from linkrot. The nominator also seems to be rather too dismissive of alternative available sources - the GBooks sources are definitely not blogs or discussion forums and, while it is usually not advisable to base the notability of a topic entirely on the (reasonably reputable) types of tourist guide and travel reminiscences that rather dominate the first few GBooks pages, they are usually a fairly good indicator of notability when, as here, they devote more than a paragraph or so to tourist sites of any age, even though one will have to dig further for properly reliable sources, such as this. PWilkinson (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The article was a clear case of WP:CV and already met WP:G12. And no. The wording was EXACTLY the same. The words "<<<copyvio removed>>>" were copied directly from http://www.india9.com/i9show/Makhdoom-Sahib-Shrine-58219.htm. It was only yesterday that an editor removed the copyvio section which is a paragraph. Check the diffs.[3] yourself because clearly you failed to check it properly.
Let me explain further that how the urls are fake and do not open. The article contains 7 references:
The google results also point to non-notable tourist sits which are entirely self-sourced and cannot be classified as WP:RS such as [www.lonelyplanet.com], [travel.kashmironline.net/hari_parbat.asp] or [thekashmirwalla.com], etc.
You choose to comment for the first time on WP:AfD and after looking at your contributions [4], I am surprised that you only chose to comment on the two articles on which I placed a deletion tag. Markangle11 (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is clearly a DELETE. The article section Hari Parbat#Legendary origin does point to WP:CV. Found more proofs here: *http://newsaraftravels.com/destinations/hari-parbat-fort/,

What a mess seriously. I request the admin to delete this article right away. This article has nothing to stand on and is violating Wikipedia policies as explained in detail above.Markangle11 (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep and speedy close per SNOW. All mountains are notable for Wikipedia per WP:GEOLAND.
Additionally, the nomination follows the edit pattern of the nominator who - along with other likeminded editors affiliated to a Pakistan-based religious sect - has been heavily promoting a religious organisation "Tehreek Dawaat ul Faqr",[5] [6] [7] [8] whilst removing all references on WP to the religious title Sultan ul Arifeen if used in a context other than the sect's venerated Sultan Bahoo. Here, Hari Parbat is a mountain that hosts the shrine of Hamza Makhdoom, a Kashmiri saint known locally as "Sultan ul Arifeen"; Hamza Makhdoom article has already been subject of deletion tagging by the sect on several occasions [9] [10] [11] [12]; their final AfD attempt was unsuccessful [13] (read comments there) so they now moved to try to delete Hari Parbat. As one of editors who blocked this Wikipedia purge by the sect,[14] with 100% certaintly I can term this nomination as malicious. kashmiri TALK 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete copyright violations and delete all information not backed by references (except images). Here are two sources which establish WP:GNG.
This place is in a war zone and both India and Pakistan have a bizarre political climate which suppresses the quality of information coming out of Kashmir. The illustrations in this art establish some notability - obviously this is a place has a rare cultural legacy - and the coverage as a tourism destination is enough sourcing for me to consider this to be well covered considering its region. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is another one that seems like a no brainer. Per WP:GEOLAND, a named geographical feature for which sources contain more than just statistics and coordinates is notable. We know more about this hill than simply its name and location. As it is, the article could possibly be expanded. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Clearly, you have got nothing to defend your article. Tales from the past wont get you anywhere anyway so it is pointless. Also the very investigation you are referring to, the one you filed against me was closed way back by the admin because you failed to provide evidence [15]. So make use of a Wikipedia policy instead.
WP:GEOLAND pointed by User:Kashmiri and User:MezzoMezzo requires a topic "to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are, in the case of artificial features, independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them." and your fake references and even the cherry-picking references (that merely have a mentio) pointed by User:Bluerasberry do not meet WP:Reliable Sources. None of the sources point to WP:Notability. So there goes down the all the 3 ivotes.
Even after your changes to the articles, it is WP:ARTN. You added [[16] which is a WP:USERG and again not an RS. Reliable sources are published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. By the way User:Kashmiri and User:MezzoMezzo are currently under suspected SPI [17] by other editors so the closing admin should bear this in mind while taking in account their ivoting.Markangle11 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not manipulate Wikipedia policies. WP:GEOLAND states clearly: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. For Hari Parbat, reliable information beyond statistics and coordinates does exist in abundance, as evidenced by sources, including those quoted by Bluerasberry. kashmiri TALK`
Additionally, you (purportedly?) try to mislead re. sources. [18] is an official website of Jammu & Kashmir Toursm, an agency of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir. Bluerasberry on the other hand quoted Lonely Planet - if you claim that LP is not a RS, perhaps we can end the discussion there. kashmiri TALK 18:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to manipulate policies but you finally stated a Wikipedia policy i am surprised. Unfortunately, even this policy says "A geographical area, location, place or other object is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are, in the case of artificial features, independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them." and the sources are not WP:third-party sources and this topic fails WP:SIGCOV already so it cannot stand. The article violates more policies for it to exist. It is a clear case of WP:CV because it has been lifted from so many sources even if that is paraphrased, it is non-encyclopedic because it only talks about legends and stories that are not based on facts. It is WP:PROMO because it is being used to promote particular WP:NN places. You are only prolonging this discussion based on non-factual arguments. Markangle11 (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Markangle11: Lonely Planet's India guidebook features a description of Hari Parbat. Please reliably prove that Lonely Planet has a vested interest in the mountain or its temples. Thank you. kashmiri TALK 14:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the SPI opened about Kashmiri was recognized as frivolous and baseless, and thus is irrelevant here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was, naturally, closed as without substance. kashmiri TALK 14:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed to how the article is a complete fail and violates so many Wikipedia policies. First you should work on that and then question me, while you seem to have changed your positions several times so that's irrelevant arguing further. Nobody in his right mind would keep this non encyclopedic article considering its lack of notability and 90% copyvio content and all fake sources and WP:WEASEL terms. Most of the article is WP:VAGUE see here [19] talking about legends and stories. To claim that this one reference is an evidence of notability and can cover all the violations, is like telling the community WP:ILIKEIT. Markangle11 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented my arguments for keep as well as made necessary edits to the article to address the issues. I will end here per WP:DNFTT and wait for closing admin. kashmiri TALK 16:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just confounded that an article about a real, non-hoax hill with reliable sources proving more than just coordinates and statistics is suddenly garnering accusations of weasel words and bold text. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2015 (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/Hari_Parbat&oldid=1077967510"