Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acyuta Kamboja


 * 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 no consensus, merge tag added. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Acyuta Kamboja
Hoax? --64.231.65.219 06:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the text comes from Brahmanism of Ancient Kambojas. -- Kjkolb 08:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sze cavalry01 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Sze_cavalry01
 * Comment: Hey 64.231.65.219 06:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC), you need to update your knowledge of history before taking drastic actions like deletion of genuine article. Are you a student of History?
 * Comment, it's copied from this section of the page mentioned above. Bad article with potential or just plain unnecessary? Not sure...  Dei zio  18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kushu01 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Kushu01 Welcome - Congrats on your first edit! You have obviously have a similar viewpoint and signature placement style to Sze cavalry01, you guys friends?  Dei zio  09:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's ok as a standalone article. Keep it...

''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'' SushiGeek 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, possible hoax. Not even a single Ghit for a "great Sanskrit scholar". Kimchi.sg | talk 12:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Google finds a couple of mentions of "Acyuta of Kamboja". Kamboja apparently isn't his name, it is the place where he lived, and Kamboja has a truckload of variant spellings, further complicating googling. Article author Sze cavalry01 seems like a solid contributor, not a hoaxter. Only "weak" opinion though as I know nothing of the subject and have a little bit of a notability concern (quite possibly fueled by my ignorance of the subject). Weregerbil 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge back into wherever it came from, not worth its own article. --Rory096 07:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.