Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian ghost

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. Consensus is for deletion, for various reasons as delineated below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian ghost

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

I cannot see any point in this incoherent article on the supernatural, apparently 'inspired' by a TV show and not written in English. TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no sense at all. GAB^Hello! 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT — Maile (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsalvageable. Anmccaff (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. It's very difficult to even determine what this is. If this is notable, it would be best to start over from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Best I can tell, at best this is a rambling essay. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not encyclopedic. Chris vLS (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found that incomprehensible. It has to be a Delete in lieu of someone making the case for notability in a language structure I can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many things in the article could be sourced if hunted down properly on web. I will try doing that. But I see no use of this current article. Hence suggesting deletion and then redirecting to Bhoot (ghost) where such "types of ghosts" can be discussed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:10, 18 March 2016 (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.