Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Critical Study of Akhyanakamanikosa


 * 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. Insufficient evidence of notability. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A Critical Study of Akhyanakamanikosa

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable book, fails all criteria at WP:NBOOK, no independent sources confirm notability, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

— 121.245.137.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete my findings are the same as WWGB's. Yunshui (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. This is an easy one.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Vimal Bafana is quite a notable person in the university of Pune. Besides holding a doctorate for work in prakrit, she has been helping and teaching students of American institute who come to india for there research on Sanskrit and Prakrit. Since Prakrit is not a very well known language as yet and the litrature is only limited to those of Jaina's it is difficult for Ms Vimal Bafna or her book has much of references. This work is very important from a point of view that the world is gearing interest in Prakrit and from that perpective its becomes quite a notable work for people who are interested Either in Prakrit or prehistoric Culture of Indus valley civilisation. I would sugggest let this article be here for a while and see how it comes along as it seems it can be improvised a lot from what it currently is. (copied from talkpage on behalf of User:121.245.137.250 ) by Yunshui (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Comment being "quite a notable person at the university of Pune" doesn't cut it. Especially when the claim is not substantiated.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

— 121.245.129.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Prakrit's study is in a very niche form now, request to keep to increase it's knowledge base on the net and motivate other contributors as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.129.109 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment looks like someone is voting twice. Naughty.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's avoid systemic bias if we can, please. And Tigerboy1996, this is not a vote. Given the differences between fiction and non-fiction books as stated at NB I say weak keep. This is never going to number 1 on the Sunday Times Bestsellers list; does it reach #4 on the Specialist Indian Philology list? . Tonywalton Talk 23:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was being inappropriate. I do sometimes make rather flippant comments and I need to be more sensitiveTigerboy1966 (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment New Bharatiya Book Corporation (note spelling) appears to be an academic publisher based in Delhi specialising in Religious Studies. Not much detail on the company, so I can't assess how important they are. Google books reveals no hits for the title or the author, so the book does not appear to be influential, even within its field see NB. I suppose that a book like this might need time to make at impact, but at the moment the evidence of notability isn't there.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There are few other citations and references which are a part of Abstract in this book. Unfortunately they are not online and hence cannot be added. The book in question is a study of a book Akhyanakamanikosha, which is written by Nemichadrasuriji in 1073 A.D. The author has tried to translate and critic on the work. This is first of its kind work and hence hardly any references around. I am not sure of Wiki policies in such cases, however even article on Prakrit has similar issues. Though I would like to have this article here, I also understand procedural issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jainranjeet (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.