Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aturaparijnana

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 delete. So Why 09:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aturaparijnana[edit]

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

Article very unclear about its subject, does not meet WP:GNG. Confused about this one, but PROD was removed, so here we are. Verifiable sources are lacking. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, and I can't tell what the article is actually about. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I Have added references but I agree article needs improvements. This is a worthy article about an concept from ancient medicine Ayurveda. With the passage of time ,the article will get more improvements by editors who are interested in medical science and ayurveda. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 06:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, those sources are from fringe journals and don't do much other than to establish that their author is writing about the topic. But the topic still isn't really notable, so I don't see what future editors could even do. Also, ayurveda is pseudoscience, not medical science. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Ayurveda. There is one single source, and a quick search yields a couple of other articles written by the same person who is one of the authors of the existing source, so it is clear that the concept exists but not that it meets GNG. Because Wikipedia cannot make medical claims based on the writings of one single person (and the requirements for sources on medical topics is very strict), much of what is in the article now needs to be removed, but the introduction might, with some editing, be moved to the article about Ayurveda. --bonadea contributions talk 09:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, a merge might be reasonable, but it doesn't even seem notable enough for inclusion into the main article. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I'm reaffirming my delete !vote after the updates to the article by Anoptimistix. Even after the updates, I still can't tell what the article is actually about. But more importantly, the article still doesn't demonstrate the topic's notability as the only two mentions are from extremely unrealiable sources. There isn't even enough information or notability to merge as was also suggested above. This is a fringe idea within a WP:FRINGE topic, but the article doesn't treat it as such. There's simply nothing here to salvage; the article should just be deleted. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Jdcomix (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This goes beyond "no evidence of notability" to "no evidence this is a thing at all"; the only reference spells it "Aaturaparijnana" and I see nothing on that either. I can't verify if it is defined in Charaka Samhita but that's clearly not sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2017 (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.