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 keep per WP:SNOW. Proposing editor should maybe take the time to read some of the feedback provided on their talk page rather than immediately deleting it. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarapurana[edit]

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

This article might not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines ReeceTheHawk (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if this is independently suitable for an article, but it is one of two parts of Mahapurana (Jainism), which is certainly suitable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Google Books and Google Scholar turn up plenty of sources. "Uttara Purana" seems to be the more common spelling. – Joe (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are about a bazillion mentions in Google books. Notability vbery clearly established.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Topics as such are usually notable whereas most bio articles are not. NikolaiHo^☎️ 06:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough Soucres are avialable for Uttara Puran. Somebody just need to spend some time on it Anmolbhat (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most surviving (and some not surviving) texts from more than 1,000 ago are notable. Given the large amount of google-books and google-scholar references to this one - it is clearly notable as well.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2017 (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.