Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ojas

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. MBisanz ^talk 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ojas[edit]

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

unable to verify Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failure of WP:GNG. Completely baseless article, no references to verify. Even there isn't a a lead. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely no evidence of notability for the even in question. Vanamonde (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article used to be only about an ayurvedic principle that seems to be in the same league as agni (Ayurveda) and ama (ayurveda). There is a note about the page's multiple subjects on the talk page that should be of interest. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ayurvedic part - The festival fork seems to fail WP:GNG but many references exist for the ayurvedic principle. A few random google hits:

Ayurveda: A Quick Reference Handbook - Manisha Kshirsagar, ‎Ana Cristina Magno - Page 26

Ayurveda For Dummies - Angela Hope Murray

Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms - Dagmar Wujastyk, ‎Frederick M. Smith - chapter entitled "The Woes of Ojas in the Modern World"

WP:POTENTIAL applies, so does WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. K2709 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails GNG with no real level of notability shown; has WP:OR and WP:fringe issues. Kierzek (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:39, 28 August 2016 (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.