Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devatas (Vedanta)

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. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devatas (Vedanta)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK of Deva (Hinduism). (WP:OR based on WP:PRIMARY sources) Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Mr. Redtigerxyz I had seen Deva (Hinduism) after drafting this page, and created a new page not knowing how to incorporate the additional information into the earlier existing article and also confident that this new page having a different approach would pass scrutiny. I have not done any original research and I have based this page on secondary/tertiary sources that have as their basis primary sources. Raj Pruthi’s Vedic civilization is not a primary source. B. Suryanarain Rao’s translation/commentary on Varahamihira’s Brihat Jataka is not a primary source. Swami Gambhirananda’s translation/commentary on the commentary of Sankaracarya on Brahma Sutra is a tertiary source. So are the works of other authors. Translations and accompanying explanations cannot be held primary sources. But, you are more experienced and better informed than I am. At the most I can re-work this page which is marked for deletion.Aditya soni (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aditya Soni seen Deva (Hinduism) after creating this article? But he can still expand Deva (Hinduism), and give up writing this one and he should provide the basic idea on other article. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability which has been proven by Aditya soni as I assume if there was evidence he would've improved it..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge appropriate content to Deva (Hinduism). Definitely a content fork, can't speak to the verifiability of any claims within. SPACKlick (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.