Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma-Haw-Tha-Dha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sandstein 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ma-Haw-Tha-Dha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not encyclopedic and not verifiable. Google search results in two unrelated hits. Crowsnest (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as nonsense. Excite search has more than two results, but none of them appear to mention anything similar to what this article contains. WP:HOAX and WP:CSD#G1 both come into play here. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete no sources, could potentially be offensive to certain religions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The story itself is true, it is one of the so-called Jataka tales. The questions are about the name, which is not verifiable, as well as whether this is encyclopedic. Crowsnest (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if the story is true (and noteworthy) then there should be sources, shouldn't there?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Circle of Chalk, reference 8 by Brewster. The used (Indian) name there for the judge in this story is Mahosadha. That might be Ma-Haw-Tha-Dha in some other language, which may be mispelled, I don't know. Also see [1] on Google books. Crowsnest (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if the story is true (and noteworthy) then there should be sources, shouldn't there?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The story itself is true, it is one of the so-called Jataka tales. The questions are about the name, which is not verifiable, as well as whether this is encyclopedic. Crowsnest (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 25 June 2008 (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.