Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manthravadham


 * 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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Manthravadham

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

Initiating this AfD on behalf of. Apparently, because of technical difficulties, this AfD was only partially completed, and the deletion rationale lost.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 16:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks&#8212;Twinkle's been doing that to me frequently. I'd said that evidently the topic is a real thing, because despite few matches on Google, a couple of them show a number of books on the subject. I figure the literature on it is mostly in non-Roman script. But even so, this article really tells us nothing; it says contradictory things (first, it says the topic is a distortion of the senses, and then it says that it's a method); and it explains the subject as though it were explaining a scientific phenomenon as opposed to a construct from within a particular philosophy or belief system. Unless someone can provide a useful rewrite quickly, it might be better not to have the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Subject is apparently notable, but this is a really poor place to start an article on it from.  If kept, article should probably be at Manthravadam as that seems to be the more common transliteration.  People searching for sources (of which there are plenty) will probably want to use that spelling.  JulesH (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like JulesH (talk) --Tamás Kádár (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not useful to include in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I can determine from sources, the title is just a non-English word for sorcery &mdash; not any specific type of sorcery, just sorcery of whatever type. Per Naming conventions (use English) titles in the English Wikipedia are in English. Uncle G (talk) 03:13, 23 December 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.