Deletion of Shakti mantras

Comment: The entire article at the moment is |original research. While the topic is worthy of article inclusion, it is best to delete this and those who want to create a well-written page on Shakti Mantras can do so with sources attributed to the translations and an authorative transliteration method. The particular selection of the mantras may also provide an unintentional sense of |POV, since certain prayers are preferred over others without any justification as of yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: As it stands, the article is almost complete |original research. Most of the citations are coming only from a few sources, none of which have shown whether or not they are |reliable. In response to the nomination for deletion, instead of attempting to improve article, the author suggested changing what the article was about (to a topic that doesn't seem to be able to meet the guidelines set at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: As above, this is a "how to" article and Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide.  Even if it were rewritten to be more encyclopedic, it is sourced from two books which are apparently not academic sources as neither is published by an academic publishing house. One of the authors, Thomas Ashley-Farrand, appears to be a Western practitioner with no academic degree.  The Hindu author, Swami Vishnu-devananda, is probably notable due to connections with a large religious organization that has had most of its success in the Western world.  The mantras discussed in the article are not written using IAST notation so it is difficult to determine exactly what they are trying to say in Sanskrit.  Without a better representation of the Sanskrit source, independent verification of any of the mantras in  related to mantra theory is very difficult.  The article gives the impression of having been copied from one of the mantravidya "spell books" that are sold for a few pennies apiece in some Indian shops, which are notoriously unreliable when quoting sources.  Many of the mantras appear to be simple nama japa mantras (e.g. OM DUM DURGAYEI NAMAHA) in which a particular goddess is simply hailed by name, with an associated sound syllable (bija mantra) added.  It is unclear where the magical associations given to these are actually sourced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Regarding use of IPA, the problem with this sort of article is that the authoritative notation for what the mantras are would be IAST, which is a lossless notation for the sounds of the Devanagari alphabet.  As I mentioned in my prior comment, there is no IAST or Devanagari in the article now, which means that all of the mantras are ''unreliable'' in terms of what they are.  The Western book being used as a source is something that I have not seen, but if the material in the article was copied from it, it honestly looks to me to be patent nonsense.  The amount of work it would take to get a meaningful article on the subject would require collaboration by someone who understood at least some Sanskrit, working from an authentic source that gave the Sanskrit, not a poor English transliteration.  The transliteration method being used in the article is not the standard method used within the Hinduism project (i.e., IAST).  Furthermore, the attempt at phonetic versions of the mantras is, well, ''terrible'', for want of a better word.  It is obvious that the Western book being relied on will not do the job.  Furthermore, while documentation of what the actual mantras ''are'' (i.e., the words) is one task, trying to associate them with ''meanings'' is another.  It is unlikely that any two sources consulted will agree on these meanings, unless they are directly quoting one another.  That is because these are being characterized as some sort of magic spells, which trivializes them.  The article reads like an online Grimoire, which is an insulting characterization of Hindu beliefs.  I think the suggestion to make the article be about the book is perhaps a way out, as the book can claim anything it wants to, and questions of accuracy or verifiability regarding what Hinduism actually thinks about these subjects apply indirectly rather than directly. On the other hand, making an article for the book would give  weight to one author's perceptions about what these things mean
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)