Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangsuk

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. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangsuk

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

Suspected hoax. Creator has a long history of creating articles that are deleted, and has in some case removed the deletion templates. Article about the author of the ref is also listed for deletion. Dmol (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THis is not hoax. Hi All, Mangsuk is the god of Lohorung community. Lohorung are the native settlers of remote part of eastern Nepal. As this culutre is not exposed in writings there are not enough evidence to prove it. This article should not be deleted in anyway. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishlohorung (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this dissertation, this pdf and this book making mention of this being used as an altar/shrine. Whether it warrants an article is debatable. Funny ^Pika 02:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the dissertation has any information at all on the subject of the article. And it's a primary source, so it's not even valid for WP. PianoDan (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A dissertation is a secondary source. It's material written about the subject, though not as great reliability as if it were a published article. This is a MA thesis, not one for a PhD, and we have often but not always accepted them as reliable, because they are supervised. DGG (at NYPL) 18:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

- - The book mentions this subject in a footnote on page 56. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax. FunnyPika has been on WP for four days, and is a likely hoax as well. PianoDan (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "PianoDan", How can a Wikipedia editor be a "likely hoax?" I thought only articles and their subjects could be hoaxes. First Light (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how your accusation constitutes as rationale for article deletion. Care to expand on your ad hominem? Funny ^Pika! 14:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm going to assume WP:good faith here. I think it may be that the article creator's English skills aren't that good. Ashishlohorung, if you don't want this article to be deleted, you need to add references to prove notability. Try WP:References#Adding References for help. Howicus (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference was there cited right in the first revision of the article. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@FunnyPika thanks for those references. @Howicus , yes could be my English is not good the article is valid as I have mentioned it is the god of Lohorung. Though there is not enough written materials in the web, pls I suggest all you guys to help me out to improve this article as I suppose Wikipedia is meant be like that. Thanks for all your support . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishlohorung (talk • contribs) 00:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined toward Keep, but rewrite. The three sources provided, two of them which are arguably reliable, all point to Mangsuk as being a ritual altar and perhaps also the name of the ritual itself in Nepal, rather than a God. The dissertation supports that idea. All of which points to poor english rather than hoax. First Light (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's poor writing. Hardman 2000, as cited in the very first revision of the article, checks out. A mangsuk is a household shrine to ancestors (Hardman 2000, p. 142–145). The book that FunnyPika pointed to above is in fact a chapter that is also written by Charlotte E. Hardman, who is a lecturer in religion at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. You can verify that Hardman is talking about a household shrine even without reading Hardman. Her work is cited by others. ISBN 9789004120631, p. 693, states that "Hardman describes […] the rôle of the mangsuk or household shrine in Lohorung ritual observances,". Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So now we know that this is a shrine rather than a god. That still doesn't make it notable per WP:GNG, and we can't really have an article consisting only of "A mangsuk is a household shrine in the religion of the Lohorung people." We'd need more information about it (and the rituals it's used for). If the article Lohorung people ever gets a section about religion, it might be mentioned there. Sandstein 20:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we have an article saying "A mangsuk is a household shrine in the religion of the Lohorung people"? Surely having such an article better serves a reader looking this up in an encyclopedia than leaving it as a red link? And surely it is more likely that more information will be provided about the topic if we have such a stub than if we don't? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because (a) one-sentence articles look silly, (b) we are not a dictionary, and (c) WP:GNG: if there is not more material in reliable sources about this topic than this definition, it's not notable. Sandstein 21:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One-sentence articles look silly" must be the most ridiculous reason for deletion that I've seen. Wikipedia exists to provide information to readers, and one sentence is more information than no sentences. And Uncle G has already shown above that the Hardman book has several pages of coverage that can be used to expand the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Phil, I will direct you to WP:INN. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate source of information. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I said in the slightest way claims that inclusion is an indicator of notability, so that link is totally irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: Wholly non-notable, god; vessel; or whatever (because there are not enough refs to actually clarify just what it is). It certainly may deserve a [cited] passing reference in an article about the Lohorung people, but its own article? Hardly. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 09:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. There's really no content to merge or whatever because it is so vague and fact-free....probably a part of the reason for the hoax concerns. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My initial thoughts were of hoax, as Mangsuk appears used as a Malaysian word rather than one from Nepal, although it's not a totally unlikely word for Nepal. On the other hand, if it does exist but we don't know what it is, is that any good for an encyclopaedia article? When this people and their culture are better documented, then is the time for an article. If UncleG can only find a footnote mention, and the author of the article says he can't find anything, then there's not much point. Peridon (talk) 14:36, 11 February 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.