List of Meitei traditional polo and pony cultural heritage sites : WP:SYNTHESIS .  Pepper Beast (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur .  Pepper Beast (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , obvious fluff.  Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 22:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have already voted, but as an addendum to my Delete vote, I would note that this is a list article, but it does not seem to satisfy the notability requirements for lists ( WP:SAL ).  Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 03:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is customary to place any subsequent comments, indented, right below your first comment.  That way, your albeit signed and attributed second post doesn't look like more than one person ivoting to casual readers who skim too quickly.  (Move this response of mine with it.)  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 18:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notice how the list claims that a field which does not exist yet is a part of "cultural heritage".  Geschichte ( talk ) 22:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are removed.  Thus, the issue that you have noticed is solved.  :-) Haoreima ( talk ) 00:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article isn't merely a grab bag of anything.  It has multiple sources cited for each piece of information provided, in both English as well as Indian languages.  -- Haoreima ( talk ) 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree : As the nominator mentioned, the issue of being Not a coherent list or article , cannot be justified.  Because, the reference this link specifically mentions the connection between Polo and Manipuri Pony , as well as mentions the temple of the god of pony, Marjing .  This source mentions the historic Mapal Kangjeibung (Pologround) .  This source mentions a Statue of Polo Players sitting to preserve the culture.  This list might go on.  Each of the sources justify the mention of Polo, Pony, Manipuri (or Meitei) Culture and History .  Even, some might argue, modern Polo on Pony was invented in the state of Manipur.  So, I don't see any non-coherent or vague compilation of list.  As per Brusquedandelion, the list does not fulfill WP:SAL .  In that specific policy, it is mentioned that, the all of the entries in a list not necessarily have to be notable as an independednt article , but it seems, in this list, all the entries are notable as independent article as well as have the same connection of being about Polo, Pony, Manipuri Culture .  Therefore, I strongly Disagree with the nominator and vote to Keep Nokib Sarkar Poke 07:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that some articles specifically mentions the connection between Polo and Manipuri Pony , as well as mentions the temple of the god of pony, Marjing really has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.  There is already an article on Sagol Kāngjei and that is not the article that is being discussed for deletion here.  It is almost a given that any sufficiently long reliable source that discusses this sport will also discuss at least one instance when the sport is played, and in doing so mention one or perhaps several locations where this has happened.  But this is not the same as discussing a list of places where the sport is played as a conjunct.  You note that the WP:NLIST says all of the entries in a list [do] not necessarily have to be notable as an independednt article , but this was never under dispute with respect to this article and isn't the cruz of my point.  Nevertheless, since you seem to believe all the entries are notable as independent article I would strongly rebut this claim.  A single mention of a game on a random website is generally not considered to be WP:SIGCOV by Wikipedians who curate and edit sports pages.  But this is besides the point: we are not discussing whether each of these events should have a Wikipedia page, we are discussing whether a list of them warrants a Wikipedia page, and for the reasons I have already stated, per WP:NLIST guidelines, they clearly do not.  Mentioning other random facts from WP:NLIST that aren't actually relevant here makes me wonder whether you are being intentionally obtuse to confuse the discourse by raising unnecessary and irrelevant issues and thereby impede the consensus-forming process.  If that is not the case, I invite you to please consider the points being made rather than posting a kneejerk reaction just because of some sentimental value you have for this article.  Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 10:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to another article.  This article sort of meets WP:NLIST as a somewhat coherent list of properly referenced items.  I'd vote to keep if I had to but I think merging is preferable.  Two potential targets are Meitei culture or Sagol kāngjei#Some important sites .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 07:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Another random collection of facts strung together, a tomb and a polo complex are very different things.  I don't see the need for this.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Oaktree b and failure of WP:SAL .  Daniel ( talk ) 22:01, 5 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete