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The result was Withdrawn.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barmati Panth (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)

Can't find sources establishing any notability according to our guidelines. This book, page 213, mentions a student writing a manuscript on it. on it on page Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Change to Keep on the strength of sources establishing notability. Most sources are likely not to be in English. It appears that the chapter at p67 of the book by Boivin is devoted to the topic, but I do not have a copy. There is plenty of evidence that the religion exists, even if the actual content of the article cannot be verified, and we do not delete purely because of lack of sources. It is very difficult to challenge religions claiming a thousand year tradition on notability grounds, because past notability, and notability in other cultures and languages, all count. On the face of it a 'keep', but I am happy to defer to those with expert knowledge. --AJHingston (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks. Spelling is sometimes 'panthi'. I found this [1] which says it was "Founded by Shree Dhani Matang Dev". Ok, we have Dhani Matang Dev, Mamaidev and maybe related articles referring to these people as historical figures but we also can find [2] and [3] which refers to these people as legendary. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know from experience that we are in difficulties not least because of language (there will be different transliterations and it is difficult for non-experts to know whether they are referring to the same or different things), because most sources will not be on the internet, and because one needs to be familiar with context (I am not sure whether what is being described is a separate religion in the sense we normally understand it or more properly a sect or religious tradition). 'Holy men' in south Asia are often described in the manner of Christian saints in medieval hagiographies, and the separation of the historical figure from the pious tradition has often not been done in accessible RS. That would not mean, of course, that they do not have a place here - the real problem would be if they turned out to be an invention of a newly created sect who had created an entire history for themselves, but the evidence does not point that way. --AJHingston (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per this reference, which says "The Barmati Panthis - who often prefer to be called Maheshwaris because of their devotion to God Siv-today form a Hindu sect affiliated to the vast movement of Santism specific to Saurashtra and Kutch." etc. The subject is genuine and noteworthy. I'll work on the article this weekend to try to get it to at least a decent stub stage. Abecedare (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination Concerns met, thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2013 (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.