Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viparyaya


 * 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 consensus. Lacks encyclopedia content. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 00:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Viparyaya

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG, due to lack of significant independent coverage in general media. Given sources are dictionary or books on specialized fringe topics and only have passing mentions of the word. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Venkat TL (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not able to say whether the topic is notable. But since the article claims to relate to Hinduism, books on Hinduism-related topics would presumably be useful sources. Also, per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, containing definitions is not disqualifying, as long as an article focuses mainly on encyclopedic knowledge. Cnilep (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cnilep I encourage you to, at the very least, judge the significant coverage vs passing mention for the subject, and share your findings. Venkat TL (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: A copyright violation investigation has been launched on the articles by the creator at Contributor copyright investigations/20211117 and the creator has now been blocked. Venkat TL (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can the nominator talk about the WP:BEFORE that was attempted on these topics, including reading some of the books that have been quoted as references? I find this a lazy nomination. When the nominator says general media what do they mean? You are less likely to see this topic in The Guardian, or in the Washington Post, but, has sufficient checks been done in some of the books relevant to the topic? Also, I do not follow what they are implying by by sources are dictionary or books on specialized fringe topics. Irrespective, I do not think that an article should be lazily nominated for an AfD sans thorough and detailed WP:BEFORE checks. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE was done and no source was found to justify a Wikipedia article. Your own searches seem to have ended up in similar manner, hence the comment on AfD nominator. The meaning of the is  (WP:FRINGE theory). The criteria of WP:GNG is not met when this word could only gather passing mentions in fringe theory books. Fringe Theory books are not considered a reliable source. Venkat TL (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * An assertion is being made above on sources (i.e. calling them 'Fringe Theory books' that is not being backed by any analysis. This sham of an AfD should be speedily closed. Ktin (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe this passes our notability criteria. Then what is stopping you from sharing sources that prove notability. Can't find any? Venkat TL (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT; no encyclopedic content contained within. Such sources as can be turned up either are fringe publications and thus unreliable, or fail to provide significant coverage. Overall, I can't make a case that this topic would need a dedicated article, and the current text is, to put it politely, beyond salvaging. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete largely per WP:TNT. There is such a lack of context the article is actively misleading. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 23:17, 3 December 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.