Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nishprapanchaya


 * 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   keep. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nishprapanchaya

 * – ( View AfD View log )



Zero in gnews, 1 passing reference in gbooks (at best), zero refs, a dictionary def. Tagged for notability and lack of refs for well over a year. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (or perhaps Move to Wiktionary) - this is a serious, good (and accurate) definition of a term found in Hindu mantras and songs. Should certainly be in Wiktionary. There might be a case for merging it to one of the Hinduism articles, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there were RS sourcing, that would certainly sound reasonable. Or content could be created at either target with RS sourcing (thereby avoiding the work and delay (tossing it in w/the 16,000 other merge-pending articles) involved in the merge process).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's unsourced, so I'm not convinced taking it over to Wiktionary would be aceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To your point, I'm not sure of how Wiktionary works, but it is not acceptable for wikipedia under our policy at WP:V, as it fails to meet WP:CHALLENGED.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary's inclusion criteria looks like it needs sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - it appears that this term may be useful for reference work and is within the scope of what this Wikipedia is all about. We need articles on these terms, however poor sourcing may be. Of course it may be better to find a bigger article to merge it into. Wikid as&#169; 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Without proper referencing, it fails the core policy of wp:v. And we generally, to whpq's point, handle dic defs at wiktionary.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added citations, some quotations and translations (sorry about all the polysyllabic latinates). More coming when I have a moment. But it does look more keepable already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   23:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Suitable encyclopedic content. We can do more explanation that a dictionary can. Now suitably referenced  DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 3 February 2012 (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.