Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Datta Devasthan Maha Sansthnam,Ahmednagar

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. Fram (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Datta Devasthan Maha Sansthnam,Ahmednagar

Sri Datta Devasthan Maha Sansthnam,Ahmednagar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete one liner about a holy site with no references or context sufficient to know what is going on at the site or why it's holy and to whom other than the guy who created it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)</small*Comment. It is possible that there is a spelling error in the title. shree sadguru darshan. *shree sadguru darshan. Friday, January 25, 2008. shree ramkrishna saraswati swami uses the spelling Sansthanam. I added the name of the state where the site is located, but I can't find evidence of notability. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Hinduism may be able to expand the article. --Eastmain (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Stifle, I think your contribution to discussions would be more helpful if you didn't always make this same formulaic comment. The standard is that the content of articles should be verifiable, not that it should be verified. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If there ain't any sources, I'm gonna point it out. Per WP:BURDEN, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" to verify it. If you can present some sources, I'll gladly amend my comment. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, if you could explain what you understand to be the difference between verified and verifiable, I'd be obliged. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Verifiable means that sources exist. Verified means that they are currently cited in the article. This article probably fails to pass either test, unless someone else can come up with some sources, but they are distinct concepts, and when you make these copy and paste one-line comments it is very difficult to understand which you mean because you first talk about the contents of the article not being verified ("no reliable sources cited") but then go on to say that this means that the article "does not comply with the verifiability policy". The second is not necessarily a logical consequence of the first. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of citations.-- danntm ^T _C 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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.