Talk:Eco-friendly Ganesh idols

WP:Promotional and similar guidelines

Yogee23, please add only factual and relevant information. Wikipedia is not a blog, nor an advertisement site for new and interesting things. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of factual and notable information. Your recent edit ([here) added non-notable and promotional material to the article. Doing so will not help stop a merge, if anything, it will support a merge. Please do not add promotional content. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC); updated 12:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102, I have not added any promotional content in this article and not to any article in Wikipedia till date. Please show case the case where I have done any advertisement of any organization and if promoted as blog. Let us be factual before attacking. Please see the articles which talks similar things. The links are here.water pollution, Air pollution. Can somebody put efforts to improve the article rather than reducing or merging.... To your question of notability, the activities are been covered by notable newspapers like Times of India and Indian Express. I have given my views for retaining this as a separate article. If majority does not agree (which is part of democracy), Wikipedia is free to merge the article for which I can not do anything. Yogee23 (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yogee23, let's look at the latest edit (here) and its additions.

• The story of Parvati being added to the Eco-friendly idols section, where it is irrelevant. Possibly relevant in the history section or as part of a section on the origins of these "new" idols, but still tenuous
• Discussing the kids choosing to buy the Eco-Friendly idols instead of the older (polluting) models reads as both a blog and as promotion of the products.
• Using only newspaper sources (and the same brands at that) without any scholarly sources or even other types of sources.

There are outstanding problems besides these which should be fixed alongside the above concerns. You're points regarding the merger of the article have been noted and discussed, but that is not my point; my point is that edits such as the one above are likely to sway a merger discussion into merging.

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102, The story of Parvati being added because of the fact that she had made the idol of Ganesh by clay which does not create any environment impact. The cheap PoP in the recent time has created lot of issues. Millions of idols are been made by PoP every year. In the past also idols including cow, goddess used to be made by clay only. Unless the people understand the origin or the concept behind this, they will not believe on this. The Eco friendly awareness is coming slowly. If you check google, there are many references which reveals that. I repeat, somebody put efforts to improve the article rather than reducing or merging.... Cheers, Yogee23 (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you implying that because the mythology says the original Ganesha was made from clay, PoP Ganeshas are kinda anti-Hinduism or non-traditional or bad or something such? That's WP:OR. And hey, PoP wasn't discovered in the mythological ages. So we never know what Parvati would have chosen if she had such options. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sailee5's recent edits in article space

Hi Sailee5, it is nice to see someone trying to help this article, however you are making edits and contributions that are unhelpful. Your last edit (at time of writing) removed the multiple issues tag and its enclosed tags. That is not an acceptable thing to do when no changes have affected the problem/s of the article that the tags are referring to.

For instance, the "under linked" tag is not for external links such as what you have added (another problem in its own right, but we'll get to that), it is for creating "Wiki links"/"internal links", such as Lord Ganesha rather than Lord Ganesha. The first links to a Wiki article, the second to an external source. There are rules and guides around such links at WP:External links. Your recent edits are violating such rules and guides without a reason for exception which is again unacceptable for wiki-practices.

Of you wish to reference a piece of information, rather than linking the word/phrase, use the <ref> </ref> pairing to create a reference, and place the {{cite}} template within the <ref> </ref> pairing to allow for proper referencing of a source. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a "how to" source and should not have in-article links that lead to such sources as there are probably many ways of making one of these idols, even using the same materials.

Thank you for your recent efforts, but you need to be aware of such guides and policies as listed above, as well as many more, when editing Wikipedia. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Should this really be a Wikipedia article?

This reads more like what you would find on some website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.204.194 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Article redirected

Please see here for an explanation. For any further discussions, please propose on the destination talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)