Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esai


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Esai

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability issues; the subject produced no hits on Google. Article consists only of original research and does not cite any reliable sources. Unsourced religion similar to Brhmoism article. Beemer 69  chitchat  17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article seems to be mainly about legends of Jesus visiting India in his youth and Hindu views of Jesus. Both are great topics for articles if WP doesn't have them yet. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment You might want to include Esa Masi in this AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Done. Thanks for the info. Beemer 69   chitchat  19:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is difference between ‘claim’ and ‘notability’. as ‘Myths to ‘Reality’. Such matter should not be debated or deleted  but posted on wiki as who said what ? Nobody has seen the past how or why old Bible converted into New Bible? My case an stakes of Brhmoism, Esa Masi , Esa seeks Wikipedia-Arbitrary intervention urgently. For instance….. Mythology, Superstitions , Blind Faith , Fictions , Philosophy , Religions , Spiritualism , Consciousness  are awkward or illogical claims to get Registered/Notifications/ References. Yet wikipedia has such topics otherwise which wikipedia / encyclopedia media caretakers paparazzi has noticed  Buddha getting enlighten under Banyan tree, however Krishna orating Gita discourses to Arjun  during crucial hours of  busy bleeding war , or  Jesus doing miracles or issuing commandments. In those days there were no internet, media or paparazzi to register, record claims references or sources and yet their claims are recorded in wiki. Naresh Sonee or Brhmoism is not a superstitious, blind faith  institute. Various news papers had proved his factual existence through news and reviews. Even internet search throw many hits on him and Brhmaand Pujan. What else this debate needs? Just fight like means school boys only to prove the existence of such ‘able voice’ wrong? Should not such crab fight end in wikipedia to claim me wrong and concentrate to read then realize what is the ‘ intention or purpose’ of Brhmoism , Esai , Esa Masi. Should only professionally managed trust who profit under the name of some religion be posted on wikipedia either Asaram, Murari Bapu , Deepak Chopra. Though Esa Masi and Esa vice-versa Brhmoism are two different 'purpose or intention' topics. This will only help wikipedi / arbitrory to improve their judgemental views that myths, religions, beleifs and voice cannot be erased on only popularity of notability on search engines. For which I leave this matter to the expert senses of  Wikipedia-Arbitrator. Regards --Dralansun (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity in India already exists to discuss about the Indian followers of Christianity. Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC) talk:202.54.176.51|talk]]) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Non-notable, possible OR and POV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Esai is the just the Hindi word for Christians, not particularly Indian ones, also
 * Delete. Just an Indi-language word for 'Christian'. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Largely a copypaste of Esa Masi. Article is a mix of unsourced claims, original research, and self-promotion of Brhmoism. Edward321 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2008 (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.