Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulsi Pujan Diwas

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Tulsi Pujan Diwas

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tulsi Pujan Diwas (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)

As per Hindu tradition, no recognized observance is known as Tulsi Pujan Diwas. This so-called event is a fabricated concept introduced and propagated by a convicted individual to influence public perception and shape a narrative to serve personal or ideological interests. True Hindu customs and rituals have evolved over centuries through deeply rooted spiritual and cultural practices, and any attempt to artificially engineer or impose new observances without a historical or scriptural basis raises concerns. Such efforts to modify religious beliefs and practices through deliberate social engineering not only lack authenticity but also pose a risk of distorting traditional faith and misleading followers. Therefore, the legitimacy and intent behind such artificially created events remain highly questionable. Charlie (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of what you (OP) said is reason to delete a WP-article. Failing WP:N is the basic reason to delete. If there are WP:RS that notes criticism of this festival, perhaps that can be added too. Per Tulsi Pujan Diwas 2024: Date, rituals, and significance (India Today), other views than yours exist. That said, there may be reason to delete, or merge to Tulasi in Hinduism or another article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to Tulasi in Hinduism seems an appropriate outcome here. That concedes there's something notable here but possibly not enough to sustain an article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I too would like to see more academic sources, but it looks like there are somewhat reliable sources on the topic as described above. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Asaram Bapu, where an appropriate sentence can be added. We have enough sources to attest that Asaram Bapu promulgated this festival in 2014 (eg, [8]) but little independent reliable sourcing of anything else.
Despite superficial appearances of the sources listed above, there is no evidence of the "festival" being celebrated widely or its notability independent of Asaram Bapu. Most/all of news articles cited are mere re-publications of press releases and third-party content as should be obvious from reading the puff-pieces or noting the disclaimer at the bottom of the Economic Times article. See also WP:NEWSORGINDIA on how this is a common, often unmarked, practice in Indian media and does not contribute to the subject's notability.
And this article in a newly formed journal with a single issue is neither a reliable source, nor is it talking about the subject of the wikipedia article; the "Tulsi Pujan Diwas" it is referring to falls on "eleventh day of the bright fortnight of Kartik month (also known as Dev Uthani Ekadashi)", ie roughly mid-November as opposed to the Christmas-alternative established by Asaram Bapu. Abecedare (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That refers to Tulasi Vivaha, which is the actual event according to Hindu traditions. Charlie (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't matter whether the observance is recognized. It doesn't matter whether it's fabricated, or why, or by whom. It doesn't matter whether it's new, lacks authenticity or poses a societal risk. What matters is whether it is notable. Valereee (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being receptive to Valereee and GGS' comments I'm changing my !vote from weak deletion to weak keep or merge. I still feel the citations might be a bit scant for a full article but it's clear there's at least some minimal notability here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Asaram, Tulasi in Hinduism, and/or Tulsi. The religious significance of the plant in various branches of Hinduism isn't in doubt, and there is lots of source material about it, including scholarly sources (which indeed is why Tulasi in Hinduism exists). But much of the material I'm seeing related to this title refers to the general phenomenon of religious belief or ritual related to the plant, not to this specific observance. The article as it stands has three sentences related specifically to this observance, and I cannot find anything else citeable to reliable, intellectually independent sources. As such a standalone article is not justified: the announcement of the observance can be sufficiently documented at Asaram, and the ritual at Tulasi in Hinduism: the satire does not strike me as encyclopedic. TL:DR; Contra several colleagues above, there isn't SIGCOV specific to this observance, only to the place of this plant in Hindu belief and practice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Asaram. It is still far behind the minimum requirement when it comes to meeting WP:GNG. Dympies (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article on Tulsi Pujan Diwas fails to meet Wikipedia’s core policies for inclusion, particularly the General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG), as it lacks substantial coverage from multiple, independent, and reliable sources. The observance itself was created in 2014 by Asaram Bapu, making it a recent and artificially introduced event rather than an organically evolved tradition within Hinduism. Unlike established Hindu festivals such as Tulasi Vivaha, which has deep-rooted religious and scriptural significance, Tulsi Pujan Diwas exists only within the sphere of Asaram Bapu’s influence and has not gained broad cultural or religious acceptance outside his following. The sources cited in support of the article are largely press releases and promotional content, violating Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sourcing (WP:NEWSORGINDIA) and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), as Indian media often republish unverified statements without editorial scrutiny. This observance has not been the subject of scholarly research or detailed academic discussion, which further weakens its claim to notability, as Wikipedia prioritizes topics with long-term, independent significance rather than temporary, sect-specific practices. Additionally, per Wikipedia’s event notability policy (WP:EVENT), Tulsi Pujan Diwas does not have a sustained impact or independent historical validation, making its existence on Wikipedia tenuous at best. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per policy based explanation by Flyingphoenixchips. This is not actually traditional/historical event/day. Started by a self proclaimed guru with a large following. Recently, Indian digital media has become churnilism, they cover literally anything. This particular topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another piece of coverage, [9], Sabrang Communications 2020. I'm not sure what WP:GNG-weight it has, but it's certainly independent of the subject. 2014 RSN-discussion:[10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this was started in 2014, 10 years should be wide enough ambit to independently define notability of this event outside WP:RECENTISM . We can find coverage for Tulsi Pujan Diwas in news articles and journals. For example this paper[1] published in 2022 primarily around Origin and significance of Tulsi discusses existence of Tulsi Poojan Diwas and finds no harm in dedicating one more day to her Nisingh.8 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nisingh.8: The "journal" IJIRT is a paid-publishing scam and the article you cite is gibberish with content cut-n-pasted randomly from the internet, eg from this 2019 astrology site, including the sentence Talk to our expert for more information. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to them they're approved by University Grants Commission (India). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't fwiw (can check here after registration). Don't know if the screenshot is doctored or if their registration was canceled at some point. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so everyone knows, the University Grants Commission (UGC) in India has stopped maintaining the UGC-CARE journal list because many low-quality and fake journals had entered it. I recently worked on updating its Wikipedia page. It's best to avoid journals that were on this discontinued list. Charlie (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some text copied from here, which seems might be interesting for WP-use. Actually, it seems a clear GNG-point, DailyO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many journals approved by the University grants commissions are predatory. Kindly see: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/02/05/indias-fight-against-predatory-journals-an-interview-with-professor-bhushan-patwardhan/
    UGC list means nothing @Abecedare@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per WP:RS event seems to be notable. It has substantial coverage from multiple sources including BBC in 2107[2]. These 2023[3] and 2024[4] articles also cover and describe rituals and significance of Tulsi Pujan Diwas Krishnpriya123 (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC is a good find, another GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC Hindi article does not establish notability for Tulsi Pujan Diwas under Wikipedia’s guidelines. While BBC is generally a reliable source per WP:RS, the specific article in question fails to provide significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. It is a brief news report that mentions Tulsi Pujan Diwas in passing rather than analyzing its historical significance, cultural impact, or widespread observance. Per WP:ROUTINE, one-time or minor coverage of an event does not establish lasting notability. The article does not indicate that Tulsi Pujan Diwas has recognition from major religious authorities, government bodies, or independent scholars. Furthermore, Wikipedia requires multiple independentsources providing in-depth analysis, not just a single fleeting mention in a general news report. Therefore, this source alone is insufficient to justify a standalone Wikipedia article. @Krishnpriya123 Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC article does provide significant coverage (some context, even), like several other linked in this afd. It's not, per definition, by itself enough for WP:GNG since that guidance states "multiple sources are generally expected", but it's an argument in favor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Singh, Dr. Devender; Sharma, Dr. Sandhya. "Tulsi Poojan: Artistic, Literary and Cultural Importance" (PDF). IJIRT. 9 (1): 723. ISSN 2349-6002.
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.com/hindi/india-42478227
  3. ^ https://www.timesnownews.com/spiritual/tulsi-pujan-diwas-2023-date-and-puja-rituals-article-106262733
  4. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/information/story/tulsi-pujan-diwas-2024-date-rituals-and-significance-2655159-2024-12-25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tulsi_Pujan_Diwas&oldid=1283231853"