Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Vedic studies

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 of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Vedic studies[edit]

Reason: The article is so obscure that it is not clear either what its subject is or why it is significant. Must be deleted. Pecher ^Talk 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent neologism / original research of Ali Ibrahim Kalyanaraman, who is himself a candidate for deletion per WP:BIO, IMHO. Sandstein 13:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand I see no reason to delete this. Islamic + Vedic gives lots of hits [1], should be easy to make this to a good article. --Striver 14:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, but a search for the phrase "Islamic Vedic studies" gives zero hits. And your search results for Islamic and Vedic do not seem to imply the sort of connection between the topics that the article does. Sandstein 15:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Possibly rename, but certainly keep.--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced. Seems largely to be the area of one scholar which wouldn't make it notable. But if there are others active in the area then add references to what they have written. Dlyons493 Talk 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is not vident that anyone other than the originator uses this term. Just zis Guy you know? 17:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this either. I would say it must be kept but that would be a wee bit presumptuous of me-- JJay 19:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Ali Ibrahim Kalyanaraman survives AfD, this could be merged into it, except the content of the article is so negligible and poorly written I'm not sure it warrants it. Шизомби 20:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond chance of being salvaged, that bad it is. Alternatively merge into Kalyanaraman article. Pavel Vozenilek 00:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is attempting prove a link between two separate religious traditions (Laws of Manu and Laws of Noah or Nu of which the latter is non-existent) quite probably based on Manu containing the name nu. The linked article on Ali Ibrahim Kalyanaraman is related to the recently deleted Vadyar Kalyanaraman Shashtrigal which was apparently this individual's former name but it does not bring up any relevant hits on Google apart from three wikipedia-related items. Green Giant 01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein and Шизомби. Melchoir 05:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. utcursch | talk 09:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 23:36, 9 March 2006 (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.