Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Mayan Connection


 * 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; 04:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hindu Mayan Connection

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

Original research, no discernible theme at this time. TrulyBlue (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete-per WP:OR-- S R X  22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Even having to sort with through the writing style, it's kind of interesting, but not written in an encyclopedic tone. This is a certain delete, mostly because it's "original synthesis" based on things that one ancient culture seems to have in common with the other; some similar sounding words, some similar symbols, some structures in India that resemble some in Yucatan.  I encourage User:Pavn123 to keep examining the topic, learn how to do cites with the system of " " and " ", and how to make redlinks and bluelinks.  I've heard such theories before, although they usually rely on some observed coincidences.  A perfect example is "atl" as the Aztec word for "water", sounding very similar to "aqua" in Latin.  If the article gets deleted, Pavn123, don't take it personally.  Save it to your computer, keep contributing.  Mandsford (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an interesting topic that has been written about, and articles on the relevant books with summaries of their theories would possibly make the grade. However, as it stands this article seems to me to be a way ofor someone to publish their own research.  TrulyBlue (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to be original research. Edward321 (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete although a possibly viable encyclopedic topic this article fails our criteria for inclusion through WP:OR and WP:SYN and probably a couple of others I haven't learned yet. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and my reasons are completely different. Any article that cites (or cites a website that has this theory as a serious and valid theory) (In this case [www.hinduwisdom.info]) the origin of Taj Mahal as a Hindu temple is bunkum. Why? A revisionist named PN Oak wrote an alternate history of India, where he denies Muslim (or any other outside) contribution to India and claims that Indians (more specifically Hindus) did most of the major achievements of the world. Don't take my word for it. Just demand more rigor and ask for more scholarly work to be cited. I think I have ranted enough for today Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This looks nothing more than original research. Lehoiberri (talk) 04:17, 20 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.