Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kativasthi

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kativasthi

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

I'm unable to find any reliable sources about this topic online, so it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is that there is a large range of spellings: "kati vasthi", "kativasti", "kati basti", etc. Almost all search results are from sources promoting Ayurvedic medicine. One apparently reliable source is Evidence-Based Practice in Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Perspectives, Protocols, Problems, and Potential in Ayurveda, which includes a brief description (p. 117) and an evaluation of its effectiveness (pp. 131–132). See also "Efficacy of Agnikarma over the padakanistakam (little toe) and Katibasti in Gridhrasi: A comparative study", one of the articles cited there. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. The article is unreferenced and consists of a single sentence. Could be redirected to Ayurveda but is not currently mentioned at that article. I would not recommend transwiki to Wiktionary because the definition is unsupported and the spelling is in doubt. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 20 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article seems to be more of a definition than article. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I recommend that it be covered in Wiktionary instead.--Rpclod (talk) 01:29, 26 July 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.