Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vajrapran


 * 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 per WP:G7 by admin. Procedural non-admin closure.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Vajrapran

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Highly promotional with suspect sources and medical claims. I deleted this previously as a text dump, but some effort has been made to improve it, so bringing it here. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment It's not promotional at all: things provided here are being practised by a lot people. I would request to reconsider the decision because due to the issue that there are very few source available associated with Vajrapran does not mean that it's a made up things. Taskwriteups (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC) User talk:Jimfbleak Taskwriteups (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Source 1, 2, 4 are circular. Source 3 is used to cite who invented it, (but not what it is or why it's important). Source 5 (6 is the same) roughly translates to an advertisement, not reliable. Source 7 cites an advertisement: one can easily take care of their mind. Source 8 (11 is the same) is short and says almost nothing about the article subject, just mentioning it once. Source 9 has no mention of the subject. Source 10 has the same idea as 8. There is nothing to indicate importance, and the citations are not WP:RS or relevant. If the uncited content is removed, it either reads like an advertisement, or you are left with a blank page, depending on how much you remove. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 16:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

[User:WhoAteMyButter] I remove those sources and provided some newspaper sources instead. I have also provided a source of a book which is also available on Google bOOKS. Taskwriteups (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The article still reads like an advertisement, and isn't neutral at all.
 * liveliness like lightning that ensures
 * undestroyable and resistless
 * through Vajrapran’s scientific approaches, one can easily take care of their mind
 * There's also no indication of why this article is important. It's full of vague and POV statements, attributing results to no specific person or case, and making claims that are uncited. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 03:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello . I understood I would rewrite those and get back to you soon.Taskwriteups (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Article Deletion: Hello . I would request you to have look at the page and reconsider the decision.ThanksTaskwriteups (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello . Rewrote the article. Of you could have a look. I tried to leave out all those lines as I understood that some of the lines seem inappropriate. Thanks for your insight. Taskwriteups (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2021 (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.