This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hinduism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Festivals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Festivals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Festivals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FestivalsWikipedia:WikiProject FestivalsTemplate:WikiProject FestivalsFestivals Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

@Valereee, @The Bushranger, @Vanamonde, @Uncle G, other interested.

I was pointed to this source [1], Sabrang Communications. Is it good enough for WP-use, I'm thinking Media commentary section, or does it fail WP:PROPORTION by default? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there's this RSN discussion. Just one person's opinion, of course. But whether it's an activist website or not, it's coverage, and there's apparent editorial oversight. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't think to check there. And yes, it's obviously a source with a view on things, but an in-text attributed quote or paraphrase would fall more under NPOV, I think.

"Sabrangindia.in opined that the festival, along with Good Governance Day, was part of an effort by Hindutva-proponents to impose Hindutva over Christianity."

Something like that is what I'm considering. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's tricky: as noted, it's an advocacy organization with a definite POV. That does not make it unreliable by definition, and I haven't examined data with respect to reliability, but I would use it with caution in this case, and I would not make a case for notability based solely on that piece. I don't see an author's byline, so I suppose we would give it weight based on the organization's prominence, which isn't large but isn't nothing. A one-sentence summary seems reasonable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky is why we call for the great minds of WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223, meant to ping you too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need to reconsider the redirect decision, this is a widely celebrated event now. GarimaSuha (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: Courtesy ping, since you were the admin who closed the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This festival was promulgated in 2014. The deletion discussion occurred last year. It's difficult to believe that much has changed in that year. To support the existence of a standalone article I would need to see sources we didn't consider last year. Please note, we do mention the observance at Asaram, and the significance of Tulsi to Hinduism has an entire page dedicated to it, at Tulasi in Hinduism. Vanamonde93 (talk) Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you have no context on what this article is even about, please mind your own business.

2. Why would anyone try to make unilateral changes to a public article? Do you own it? ~2025-42881-01 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the process to restore the original content? Any way to escalate this issue of random people bombarding a religious article due to religious hate? ~2025-42881-01 (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

let me clarify, nobody has the right to delete an article useful for millions just because they `think` due to their `arrogance` that it should not exist ~2025-42881-01 (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to the original article is the way to go, but deleting is preposterous ~2025-42881-01 (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sad that people who have no context or factual knowledge of the state of proceedings are commenting hurtful things ~2025-42881-01 (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

very unfortunate ~2025-42881-01 (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've EC protected for two days. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across an orphaned article about this festival with a different spelling. Since this is the popular spelling, I have merged the two articles. I have no idea if this duplicates the content previosly discussed in the AfD/merger decision. However, if this article's content is to survive, it needs to be under this title. Rublamb (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have updated the article, adding sources where needed and removing unsourced content. Rublamb (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb: As the content was redirected rather than deleted at AfD, it is visible in the page history. The version recreated at a different title was substantively identical, with some LLM-esque formatting tweaks. It ought to have been deleted under WP:CSD#G4, as a clear end-run around AfD. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I agree this was probably an example of WP:CSD#G4. However, the article has since been significantly improvied. I have added content and sources, removed unsourced content, and made significant copy edits. Given that the merger was seven months ago, it is not unreasonable to revisit with fresh eyes. There are at least two sources that cannot be considered churlnalism, thus allowing the topic to meet notability. That being said, I am not against merging and redirecting to Tulasi in Hinduism, which already has a section about this holiday. Merging would be easy since that article already discusses the symbolism and the religious practices surrounding the tulasi plant, making it a superior merging/redirect destination than that of the AfD. If you have time, please take a look at both the updated article and Tulasi in Hinduism and let me know what you think. Since I am neutral to the previous discussion, I am open to suggestions. Rublamb (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was careful in saying it ought to have been deleted: it does not presently meet the criteria. I would support a merger. As I noted at AfD, the sources about this observance contain material that is largely generic to the significance of the plant to Hinduism, which is considerable. But very little of the material is specific to this observance. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. My read is different. I find that the source materials are very specific to the holiday, explaing why it is significant and how it is obserbed. Since the holiday is a celebration of the plant, that is logically a major component of the sources. However, I trimmed the plant background from the article; when compared to the article thatt is about tulasi in Hindusim, it is pretty easy to see that this article just summarizes the plant's importance and connection to the holiday.

My problem is that the Indian newspapers seem to be working from the same press release or source material. Only a couple of sources present the content differently, including the BBC. And I have a hard time accusing The Economist of churnalism, so it also counts are reliable for factual content.

I'll come back to this when I finish up some other projects and decide to improve more or merge. Thanks for your feedback. Rublamb (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]