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 default no consensus. I been trying to make sense of the policy based comments to determine a consensus of this AFD for the past 20 minutes, and this is simply a nationalistic mess that a valid consensus needs to be done though talk page discussion and not here as apparently there is a few articles that is very similar about this subject including the final comment below. AFD is not cleanup or to handle disputes unless the article is in clear violation of our guidelines and policies, which I couldn't tell here. Secret account 21:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deva Devali[edit]

Deva Devali (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)

This article that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. The name deva-devali is itself incorrect and the correct term deva-diwali literally means celebration of Diwali by demigods. The topic is not encyclopedic enough and it does not list any reliable source to verify it. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First nominating user redirected article to Diwali with blank edit summary. When I reverted, he came here. The nominating user has history of abusing AFD process [1] [2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7] and redirecting, moving pages without discussion and with blank edit summaries. I have reported him for other issues also on ANI here. I think just article name change to 'Deva Diwali' is needed. neo (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note to Closing Admin wrt User:Neo. Keep Vote above - kindly go thru his recent comment of 22 June 2013 at Talk:Deva Devali - where he has suggested redirect to ...this article should be redirected to Dev Deepawali (Varanasi). I can't post this on AfD page due to edit box limit problem. neo (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2013. Considering this fact his Keep vote should not be counted. Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make some valid, if not telling, points and observations about this AfD and the pthers you have mentioned.--Zananiri (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's Day all have separate articles about them, as they are significant events in national or religious calendars. I do not think that this article should be deleted, or given short shrift by merging it with Diwali or redirecting it to other articles on Jainism. The event is an important part of the Jain calendar. Jainism has an identitiy of its own, so it seems condescending to give this event an also-ran status under articles on Hinduism and/or Hindu festivals such as Kartik Poornima. The spelling in the heading is indeed wrong. That is easy to rectify. Jainism has its own feast days and festivals and there seems to be no reason to merge such articles with those on other religions, because they, too, have similar festivals. This is not the first time the AfD nominator here has brought an article on Jain issues to AfD simply because he has his own views on what Jainism means or represents. Lapsed Jains might indeed be indifferent to the meaning of this festival but for Jains generally it is significant, like all those I have mentioned above which have their own articles. --Zananiri (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Jain new year is celebrated on Vira Nirvana Samvat one day after Kartik Poornima, which already has a separate article. So, I would once again say that article should be redirected to Kartik Poornima. Jethwarp (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification from the nominator

Rahul Jain (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the door of a house is broken, one does not demolish the house. The door is replaced i.e. it is changed. The only thing wrong eith this page is the title, so there is absolutely no need to delete the article, which seems to be an odd suggestion, as there is nothing wrong with it. Just changing the title should suffice. Diwali (Jainism) may be a better solution than Dev Diwali or Deva Diwali. Merging the present article with or redirecting it to Kartik Poornima seems equally preposterous as it is not the solution from the Jain point of view. Jainism has its own distinct identity and place in the religions of the world and should not always be identified with Hinduism or Hindu practices, rituals and beliefs.Most Jains disapprove.. The Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church celebrate Christmas on the same day (the Greek Orthodox Church does not) and have some things in common but they are different. Jainism and Hinduism, too, have some things in common but they are different and Jain traditions should be respected and recognised as such. Changing the title to Diwali (Jainism) is eminently suitable and the nominator could withdraw his AfD nomination, if that is possible (not always the case).--Zananiri (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect to Kartik Poornima also; Kartik Poornima is a date, on which Hindu, Sikh and Jain festivals take place; it should have summary paragraphs and main article links for them, not try and cover all three.
Whether this festival is the same as Vira Nirvana Samvat, and therefore should be merged with that article, I would leave to those who know more about Jainism that I do (though there is nothing on either page to suggest it): But if so, it should be discussed as a merge, not simply done on the back of this debate (“ merge” does not mean “blank and redirect”). Moonraker12 (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker12 created this article but the nominator of this AfD did not bother informing him that he was nominating it for AfD. It is good manners to do so. One just has to look to see if the creator of an article is still active, if one thinks the article should not be here.--Zananiri (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just went thru the article and I feel it is totally messed up. It says :-

Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a late interpolation: I have addressed Jethwarp's point, below. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - I accept that the article could be improved. However, deleting an article just because the title may be or is wrong is ridiculous. That can be put right in five seconds. I have corrected or changed the titles of other articles in the past. It is no big deal. There is an article entitled Diwali in Gujarat yet Diwali is celebrated in other Indian states as well. If that article is kept, we should also have separate articles on Diwali in other Indian states. In fact, Diwali in Gujarat is already mentioned in the main article on Diwali in which its celebration in other Indian states is also mentioned in subsections with the names of the states. Diwali in Maharashtra has already been redirected to Diwali yet Diwali in Gujarat is still there. For how long? I think that the title of Diwali could well be changed to Diwali (Hinduism) and the title of this article changed to Diwali (Jainism). This article could be revised, improved and expanded. Why should everything related to Jainism be amalgamated with articles on Hinduism or be placed under the umbrella heading of articles which are mainly about Hindu traditions, beliefs and practices? Take that article on Kartik Poornima. The first sentence in the lead states: Kartika Poornima (Kartika purnima) is a Hindu holy day celebrated on the Purnima ... Get the point? Jainism is again given short shrift and mentioned way down in the article. Anyone reading just the lead would associate Diwali in the main with Hinduism. Hence, this article could be kept and reviewed and, where necessary, corrected. There are other ways of dealing with the issue e.g. change the lead in the Kartik Poornima article to say 'Hindu and Jain' holy day' or have two Kartik Poornima articles, one with (Hinduism) and another one with (Jainism) in the title. However, to give Jainism an also-ran position in this matter and/or in other similar situations appears to be a highly biased point of view. Just improve this article, if you can do so.--Zananiri (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Jain year starts with Diwali says the article, Vira Nirvana Samvat. Now if Jain year starts day after Diwali. Then why it is mentioned here on Deva Devali - page. As I said earlier, the whole page is copy-paste and giving wrong or confusing information. I again reiterate, that it should be re-directed to Kartik Poornima - it's lede clearly states It is sometimes called Deva-Diwali or Deva-Deepawali - the festival of lights of the gods. I wanted to clean-up the article but not doing so as I have voted here in AfD. Jethwarp (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You are allowed to change or withdraw your vote altogether by striking through your original vote like this redirect to Kartik Poornima. No problem whatsoever there. Since you say you are familiar with the subject, should you decide to clean it up, as you have indicated, I would be pleased to help you with copy editing, if required. Why delete, merge or redirect something which can be kept with improvements! However, my observation about Jainism having to play second fiddle to Hinduism in many Wiki articles such as Kartik Poornima stands. You and others here have not addressed this issue. There seems to be no justification for this stance.--Zananiri (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason to have two separate article for the same festival just because it is celebrated by two different religions in this case. If we remove all the confusing and redundant information that is present in this article, the only thing that will remain is the line "Diwali in Jainism is the celebration of the festival of Diwali by Jains". There is no point in making the redirect "Deva Devali" → "Diwali" or "Deva Devali" → "Kartik Poornima" since the name "Deva Devali" is clearly incorrect. If we redirect this page to some other article, it would leave a redirect with incorrect spelling. As far as I know, there is no policy of wikipedia which asks for redirects with wrong spelling. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your talk page, I get the impression you may not be familiar with many Wiki policies. As I have said repeatedly, the title can be changed in five seconds. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill. At one point, you yourself suggested changing the title to Diwali (Jainism). We kept Atman (Jainism) - which you wanted deleted viz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atman_(Jainism) - and also have Atman (Hinduism) and Atman (Buddhism) because they are all about different religions and have their own distinct features. I would apply the same arguments which I and others put forward to keep Atman (Jainism) to keep this article. --Zananiri (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the page to Diwali (Jainism) would have two problems, firstly, there would be an incorrect redirect as a side effect, as I said earlier "Deva Devali" → "Diwali (Jainism)". Secondly, and more importantly, the article Diwali (Jainism) cannot be expanded enough to make it of encyclopedic quality. This is so because apart from the fact that Diwali is celebrated on the occasion of Mahavira's death rather than Ram's coming to ayodhya, there is no difference between the two. For such small difference, there need not be two separate articles and anything that we add in "Diwali (Jainism)" would perfectly fit under "Diwali". Rahul Jain (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are making assumptions when you state with an air of finality that the article cannot be expanded enough to make it of encyclopedic qualty implying thereby that no one else could possibly add anything of value to the article if it is kept. Really! Hardly a convincing argument. I think using the indicative case in such arguments is being presumptuous. --Zananiri (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the sentence after "the article cannot be expanded enough to make it of encyclopedic qualty", you will find that I explained my position. It is not an assumption because its substantiated with an argument in the very next line. Rahul Jain (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still stand by my opinion i.e. Redirect to Kartik Poornima. Because, Kartik Poornima is also known by name Dev Diwali. Now, Hindus, Jains and Sikhs may have different reasons to observe this day or festival and the article Kartik Poornima, clearly explains the reasons - and - point of view - of all religions. - Jethwarp (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also one should note that Jains do not celebrate this day as Dev Diwali as the name suggests - the name suggests it is day when Devas celebrate Diwali in heaven. Jains celebrate Kartik Poornima as Dev Diwali is incorrect statement.
The correct statement would be Kartik Poornima a.k.a. Dev Diwali day is celebrated by Jains for remembering Mahavir Swami. - [8]. Those, who are pushing Jainism point of view and Keep votes neither have any in-depth idea about the article name nor do they have in-depth idea about Jainism - the article name Dev Diwali is just another name of Kartik Poornima. Thanks. - Jethwarp (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The closing Admin or person who closes this in case of Non-admin closure should also see the following comments made on User_talk:Zananiri page by Moonraker - I think we should have an article on the Jain festival (which is why I wrote it; I came across it while editing the Diwali pages); but I'm not clear now whether I got the name right. If it is the same as Vira Nirvana Samvat, and that is the correct name, then a merge would be reasonable. But other people have contributed to it as Deva Devali, and no-one (except RJ2307) has complained so far... Moonraker12 (talk)
The other keep voter User neo - says Jainism is one of the major religions and Deva Diwali is biggest festival. It deserve separate article. It should not be deleted or redirected to some other article on the assumption that article will never be improved.
I have already explained why Deva Diwali is not a festival of Jains. Just see google book result [9], [10] almost zero results not a single book mentions it as a major festival of Jains
Deva Diwali is just a name often used for Kartik Poornima day. Jains observe this day for different reasons as explained earlier.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - and we should be giving correct information to the readers and editors should work with Neutral Point of View. Regards. Jethwarp (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am neither a Jain nor a Hindu nor a Sikh so have no axe to grind as far as this article is concerned. The nominator did seem to present his very own views (POV) as he emphasised in his last post here again, but he has now retired from Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rahuljain2307 - so this AfD is in the balance. I agree that WP:NPOV is of the essence, which is why I maintain that the article should be kept, renamed, improved and expanded, with clearer information about Diwali (Jainism) and the relevance of Dev Diwali to Jains as well, to make it a decent, informative and truly encyclopaedic article. Merging it with other articles or redirecting it elsewhere, would not give those interested in the subject the true or complete picture. As the nominator has gone, we can start afresh with an absolutely unbiased NPOV. Kartik Poornima is not the answer. Millions and millions of non-Jain/Hindu/Sikh people around the world have heard of Diwali and if they wanted to find out more about it on Wiki, they would look for it under Diwali in the first instance not Kartik Poornima, as the latter term is Double Dutch to most of them. As a non-Jain/Hindu/Sikh individual, I would do the same. Renaming the article Diwali (Jainism), in the context of Jainism, and expanding it elaborately would certainly teach me more about it than Kartik Poornima. Continuing to dwell on Kartik Poornima and what the present title of this article suggests becomes meaningless in the context of what the article is supposed to be about, as its creator has indicated.--Zananiri (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have gotten it all wrong, you are confusing between Diwali and Dev Diwali. We are discussing Dev Diwali here and not Diwali - see your own comment - they would look for it under Diwali in the first instance not Kartik Poornima.
If you want to start an article like Diwali (Jainism) - please go ahead and start it but do not confuse it with Dev Diwali. Diwali is celebrated by Jains on day of Diwali only and not on day of Dev Diwali. Diwali falls on New moon of Karika month and Dev Diwali falls on Full moon of Kartika month.
In fact just did a google search [11] and it is more confusing. Many of the books say Mahavir Swami got moksha on day of Diwali and not on the day of Dev Diwali ????
That is why I told earlier, that whole article is messed. The creator has just copy pasted things from pages like Diwali and Vira Nirvana Samvat without understanding what he is creating. I hope some other editors join the debate. Going by the name of title Dev Diwali you cannot just expand it becoz it will fall to some extant as WP:OR or WP:HOAX. Bcoz Dev Diwali is just another name for Kartik Poornima day. ---- Jethwarp (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you say, you have done a Google search and found nothing of value, here is your chance to put things right. You would be making a valuable and important contribution, as you are interested in generating encyclopaedic knowledge about this subject. Such an article, along the lines I have suggested, by renaming this article Diwali (Jainism), could include what you are telling me and others about Dev Diwali as well, the significance of the two events and explain the misunderstanding caused by people referring to Diwali/Dev Diwali. All the more reason for doing so, as you seem to know something about the confusion the two terms can cause. My knowledge of Hinduism and Jainism is limited, so I am not going to create any article on the subject. in fact, for personal reasons, I do not create Wiki articles on any subject, even if the subject may be something about which I know a lot and have published material. So, I will leave it to you and others to deal with the subject under discussion and spread your expertise. I can assure you that people like me would fund it useful, without having to look at Kartik Poornima, which most people in my circles and environment have never heard of. So, yes, I may have got it all wrong, as you say, But the Kartik Poornima article should give the same weighting to Jains, Hindus and Sikhs. I might put that right in due course. --Zananiri (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jethwarp: Just to be clear:
This article was not created as a content fork, it was a spin-off article from the Diwali page. The discussion on the matter was on the talk page (here), and the Diwali#Jainism section was summarized and copied with these edits in Decemebr 2011. If the content was re-instated at Diwali subsequently, by someone who doesn’t understand the whole Summary/Main article set-up, I suggest that needs addressing there, not here.
Now, the grounds for deletion are here.
This article does not lack reliable sources, nor (as I have shown) is it a content fork. It is neither advertizing, nor spam, nor vandalism nor a copyright violation, and it is not original research. The subject does not lack notability; so on what grounds does it need to be deleted?
If you have any problems with the content (and you have highlighted (at most) two mistakes, which were in the Diwali article before this one) then fix them. But this, is not the way to go about it. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Moonraker, I did not start AfD. Secondly, I have already said there will not be much left - if cleaned up - I have voted for redirect - and donot want to repeat the reasons again and again. As the creator of article it is your first duty to see that article is imparts factual information. However, as you have said I may decide to delete things which I have deleted the things I find are not correct and if you want to reinstate then the ONUS lies with you. Jethwarp (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:@Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) -- Mahavira did not attain nirvana on this day. Please see Talk:Deva Devali - to clear your confusion. Also if you go thru AfD - you will find there already is an article on Mahavira's Nirvana day - Vira Nirvana Samvat. Thanks - Jethwarp (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still not changing my opinion on the basic topic. Also i really meant it when i gave that WP:WALLS link. By no means i am ever gonna read all the dumping that you all editors have done so far. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that is that most of the article has been deleted whilst we have been discussing it (see here) Moonraker12 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The admins / editors should note that User:Neo. - has already created a new article Diwali (Jainism) - shifting the disputed content over there, which I welcome.
I think now the title Deva Devali - should be redirected to Kartik Poornima. I am bringing this info here - if someone wants to change their vote - as Deva Diwali is just another name for Kartik Poornima day. See goggle book search [12] - Perhaps User:Neo. would like to change his Keep vote also - Thanks - Jethwarp (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jethwarp: I have been away, but as Moonraker12 says, you have disembowelled his article and, it seems, taken over from the nominator of this AfD by proxy. Excising the content of an article rather than editing it, is not really kosher. It doesn't matter whether someone else has created an article on Diwali (Jainism), as this article in its original form was about a significant Jain issue. Jainism is just as important as Hinduism or any other religion, but your recent edits at Kartik Poornima once again evince the Hindu bias in that article, which, to me, is a compelling reason to keep this article and let its creator, with the collaboration of other open-minded. unbiased contributors, undo your seemingly one-sided and unjustified excisions, and improve it. As I have said before, one should treat all religions with respect and an open mind (NPOV). A person who is not a Hindu or a Jain is more likely to have an open mind and edit the article without any bias. I can understand Moonraker12. What you are asking to be redirected is not what he created or what the original AfD article was about. It looks increasingly like your POV. Please refrain from telling everyone else repeatedly that they are all wrong. It appears, this article, in its present form after your wholesale excisions, is, more or less, what you so adamantly wish to be submerged into Kartik Poornima, which, I think, looks like an article with a pronounced Hindu slant. --Zananiri (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admins - Please go thru User_talk:Zananiri and User_talk:Neo.#Deva_Devali and User_talk:Moonraker12#Thanks - where in some of the editors who have voted keep here - have already agreed that there was error in naming the article and hence created a new article Diwali (Jainism). Now it demonstrates that some of them are having two opinions - one at their talk page - and - another opposite of that at AfD - also does it fall under WP:CANVAS or WP:GANG - I am note sure may be or may be not? Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 13:21, 22 June 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.
More