Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angustha purusha

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angustha purusha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unreferenced essay that makes no claim to notability, it is very difficult to understand what the article is even about and it is written like a high school paper, almost certainly the entire article is original research, and needless to say it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not verifiable. It's not nonsense, I don't think it's OR, but reliable 3rd-party sources regarding the little man the size of a thumb who lives in your heart are going to be hard to locate. --Lockley (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom this is gibberish Devokewater (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator - my eyes hurt after reading that little article JW 1961 Talk 21:18, 15 July 2020 (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.