Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishanti

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. Tone 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vishanti

Vishanti (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)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete comic fancruft that lacks notability, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Boz. One or the other. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Vishanti have been covered enough to satisfy GNG. I came across them with stuff I borrowed for Eternity (and still have yet to finish incorporating...)
  In the book Doctor Strange and Philosophy: The Other Book of Forbidden Knowledge, the Vishanti are mentioned in 7 of the contained essays. Several are in passing, but two are decent. Klofft discusses Strange's lack of faith, despite invoking the power of the god-like Vishanti in Doctor Strange, Moral Responsibility, and the God Question. Wright and Zehr discuss Strange's incantations to the Vishanti as parallels to him upholding his Hippocratic Oath and acting like a better physician after becoming Sorcerer Supreme in Doctor Strange, Master of the Medical and Martial Arts. In a separate work The Superheroes Devotional: 60 Inspirational Readings, Strauss discusses the Doctor Strange's relationship with the Vishanti and the parallels that can be drawn to a relationship with God before discounting them as similarities and not a relationship with God. I also saw some typical Top X stuff, but I won't bother with them.
  Obviously the article doesn't currently reflect this Notability, but the sources only need to
  WP:NORUSH... -2pou (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What exactly are you seeing in "Doctor Strange and Philosophy?" I'm looking at the name of the group and individuals, but it all seems to be trivial. I guess the second one is something, but I'd say it's more relevant to Strange than this grouping. I feel like the issue with a lot of these comic articles recently is most of the sources are much more relevant to the hero than the side characters. TTN (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't realize I wasn't watching. I was mainly referencing pages 210 and 240 for the two papers that I singled out from the rest of the book. It appears as though only p. 240 shows in the Google Books sample. I have an offline copy at the moment, but the strength of the other ref is about equivalent. Based on your comment, I believe you were able to see p. 240 and found that to be a passing mention. I just felt that references to religious beings in a comparative or contrasting light (although brief) were more than trivial plot. -2pou (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing how this passes
  WP:GNG. I've reviewed sources presented by 2pou. Well, first one (second one is not available for me to view). First source however doesn't go beyond a few plot-summary-type mentions in passing, that's not good enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just about anything Doctor Strange related is going to talk about this. If Doctor Strange is notable then so is this by common sense alone IMO. But I guess the burden of proof is on me. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 06:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't have access to
  WP:AGF is a very important philosophical point here on Wiki: we should assume good faith in 2pou's analysis of the sources and not simply vote delete because we can't access them. FOARP (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Let this page stay. @BOZ:, @2pou:, and @FOARP: are right about the coverage. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @FOARP:Thanks for the mention to bring to attention I wasn't watching the page. Anyway, yes, there is AGF, but I did provide the Google Books links thinking that they were searchable in case people wanted to weigh in, so let me know if something isn't working for you. For a closer look, I think you should be able to use the search box on the links provided. It appears there are other access issues people are having issues as well. I'm not sure why the second might not be available for viewing... I thought that was the one easier to search. Maybe I can figure out a different way to link if need be. -2pou (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not seeing how the sourcing passes
  WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Nothing would be lost through deletion (
  WP:SPINOFF applies. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:18, 1 December 2019 (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.