Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajgaibibi

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajgaibibi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Current source do not support this article and google book search does not return much to improve the artcile. Wiki Library returned no match. One source cited is an encyclopedia for "Oladevi" and the term "Ajgaibibi" is mentioned only once. Also, the cited source does not give clarity that this word is used for Hindu goddess as described currently in the lead sentence. Asteramellus (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Asteramellus (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of significant coverage. For example, when doing another search on Google Scholar, I found exactly one scholarly article that had been cited 10 times in as many years. I'm not an expert on comparative religion; but having read independently, visited various houses of worship including Hindu temples, and edited a wide variety of religious articles enough to create my own standards, I don't think this deity is notable. For WP:DCOI purposes, I'm an Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Agletarang (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The source cited Banglapedia entry on Oladevi does not directly substantiate claims about Ajgaibibi worship, historical role, or cultural significance. Assertions about her inclusion in a prehistoric seven-goddess group, alongside figures like Chandbibi and Asanbibi, lack attribution to independent scholarly analysis, raising concerns about WP:OR. Article status as a stub with minimal content and I think there is no viable path for improvement further. Presenting unverified folk traditions without reliable sources risks compromising WP:V. NXcrypto Message 10:12, 29 January 2025 (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.