Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pashyanti

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 speedy delete. In addition to the copyvio found by Vanamonde, I checked the Meyer-Dinkgräfe source and the Ray & Ray source both of which were copy-pasted extensively. These were all inserted in the first edit, and there seems to be no non-infringing revision to revert to. As such I deleted the as an unambiguous copyright violation. — Wug·a·po·des 22:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pashyanti

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

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

A word from a language without significant coverage in general media. Only has passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given sources are online dictionaries or books on special topics. Article also violates WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Venkat TL (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NFRINGE and WP:PSCI are not applicable here. Curbon7 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On its face, the article is neither a dictionary definition nor a pseudo-science topic. It treats a concept in Hindu philosophy. That is not a philosophy I am personally well versed in, but the article appears to be properly sourced and otherwise in good order. Cnilep (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first line sourced to a Sanskrit dictionary, from the second para the article gets into unsourced and unscientific gibberish like "semi-cosmic sounds of sacred ash made of burnt dried wood or cow dung". The sources used only provide passing mentions. @Cnilep, on what basis of notability are you voting keep? please provide the WP:THREE sources that you think shows that this topic passes WP:GNG, and I will withdraw my nomination. Venkat TL (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Venkat TL that the article has an encyclopedic tone and could use a rewrite. But that's not justification to delete it. Overall, at a cursory glance, I agree with Cnilep and think the article should stay. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The present state of the article is a different matter and not for AfD to consider. I have nominated the article as the topic fails our notability criteria. Please share the sources Independent of the subject that give significant coverage to the topic. None exist. Venkat TL (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the sources given, by nine different authors, fail those criteria? Largoplazo (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the table below. Venkat TL (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the table, I agree that it's well referenced. I'm removing my vote. Searching by "Pasyanti" turns out substantially more references, but a new article about Vāk which is all 4 forms of speech would probably make more sense than fixing this one. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment
Source	Problem	WP:GNG
Sanskrit-English Dictionary.	Word not found. Dictionary	✗ Fail
Amit Ray (June 2010). OM Chanting and Meditation. Inner Light Publishers. p. 36.	1 Passing mention in a book on meditation	✗ Fail
Ashok Kumar Datta (August 2013). Praanas, Divine-links and Auras. Strategic Book Publishing. p. 98,99.	1 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
Banani Ray (9 June 2010). Awakening Inner Guru. Inner Light Publishers. pp. 86, 87.	2 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
Helmut Coing. Ius Commune. Vittorio Kloster mann. pp. 72, 73.	book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
Daniel Meyer (March 2005). Approaches to acting: Past and Present. p. 72,73.	book on acting. found in section on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
William S.Haney (2006). Cyberculture, Cyborgs and Science Fiction. Rodopi. p. 51,122.	found in section on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
Pramod Bharati (26 March 2014). The Paradise Never Lost. diamond Pocket Books. p. 44.	3 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
William S.Haney (May 1999). Culture and Consciousness. Bucknell University Press. p. 80.	1 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
Tantric Yoga and the Goddesses. Motilal Banarsidass. 1999. p. 55,79.	1 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
S.S.Goswami (May 1999). Layayoga. Inner Traditions.	1 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail

Delete, possibly speedy delete, and start over. Possibly a viable article, but at the moment entirely violates WP:NOR, as it lists widely varying definitions of the same topic with no indication that they have been treated by reliable sources as a cohesive whole. The one source I checked, the Haney source [1], had been copied from verbatim: if that's true for others, speedy deletion is applicable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:01, 15 November 2021 (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.