Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jataka Bharanam


 * 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. WP:G12 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Jataka Bharanam

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in general media. This is a book on fringe theory (pseudoscience) that failed to merit a mention in Hindu_astrology. Article also violates WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. The creator is blocked after multiple copyright violations. See  Contributor copyright investigations/20211117. Venkat TL (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: list of Astrology-related deletion discussions, Literature, Hinduism,  and India. Venkat TL (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: We keep material that is inherently notable regardless of coverage or lack thereof. Please consider withdrawing this nomination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please point me to this policy? Regardless, I am not withdrawing. I have done WP:before and I am convinced this junk is not deserved here. Venkat TL (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, "just because" isn't a reason to have an article. We're tying to combat misinformation, by using reliable sources. You can't prove something, it can't be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: This book is related to Hinduism so might be notable. Contributor008 (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Contributor008 not about Hinduism. book is about astrology. Venkat TL (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is about Hindu astrology Contributor008 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Contributor008 not Hinduism. Respond with evidence How is it Notable? Venkat TL (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This user says "keep" and when asked for the basis of the source, it does not have any kind of source/evidence. Articles for deletion/Smita Saravade PravinGanechari (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. Would a move to Draft space resolve these conflicting opinions? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify: the two comments above lead me to believe there's a reasonable chance that the topic may be notability but we currently lack the necessary sources. –– FormalDude  (talk)  11:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Draftify It looks like this could be notable but the article is so poorly sourced and written that I can't really tell. Send this to draft and go though AfC.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Article is copied from another website, author of this article has been warned about copyright violations before.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:49, 14 October 2022 (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.