Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parasmaninath Temple

Parasmaninath Temple

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

Non-notable temple. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Team,

As per my knowledge and information i have verified from my end that this place is authentic and genuine, i do not know how it went for deletion,Please do the needful. Regards, --PawanJha 09:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquejha (talk • contribs)

Weak keep. The subject temple appears to be notable according to my standards: it has a festival program, it is notably large in size and congregation, it is the site of a major pilgrimage, and a significant icon is housed therein. I was able to copy edit the Hinglish (my apologies to any person or deity who may be insulted). The real problem here is sourcing. Can anyone find good English-language sources? Bearian (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a bit doubtful of the claims. I mean, there no proof that the temple has the tallest Shiva statue in India or even that it is visited by 20000 people. I am struggling to find mentions about this fact. About the temple in general, I couldn't find anything in major English dailies. There is a little bit of coverage in local Hindi dailies. The most reliable of the local sources is Prabhat Khabar, but it only mentions the place by name without any context. The other two Hindi (actually a dialect of Hindi), sources are more like local blogs which also act as an online news source. From what I have seen, this looks like a village temple which may have some prominence among the nearby villages (but I can't find sources to back that claim). I will continue to look for coverage this week, but otherwise I would suggest a redirect to an appropriate article.--DreamLinker (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says Bihar and Jharkhand not India. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I made a mistake here. The claim is indeed about Bihar/Jharkhand. But that said, I still wasn't able to find any reference for it.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The article is now improved and I see strong reason to keep this here.--Pankaj (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge there is existence of the temple and some coverage. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unfortunate delete, but I am literally not finding enough to even verify the facts, much less write a full article about it. Here's what I managed to find

I have already mentioned that I can't find reliable source which mention it. There are local sources in Maithili available but these seem to be local blogs (which sometimes act as news sources). Only one source mentions the name (without context).
I am not convinced by the claim of another editor that the article was improved in this edit. For example, it added two references [1] and [2] to backup the claim that the temple has "one of the tallest shiva temples in Bihar/Jharkhand". However, there is no mention of the statue in any of the references. Not even the name is mentioned.
The images seem to be copied from a website/facebook page. It is possible that the person who created the article may be a devotee or closely involved with the temple. That might explain why they consider it to be important enough to have a Wikipedia article. But this temple doesn't seem to be important enough to have received coverage.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]