Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nizhal Thangals

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep and move. Eugene van der Pijll 19:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nizhal Thangals
This appears to be a hoax. Google search reveals one result. Author can't decide on how to spell this word; I have tried multiple spelling combinations but none bring up relevant results.  Barfooz  (talk)  02:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Vote changed, see below)
 * It's not so much of a hoax as it is an obscure sect of Hinduism. I suspect that this article, like every thing else the author has created, is copyvio from .  In any case, I vote Delete, not notable.  --Xcali 02:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he was inspired by that content, but I have no idea how he made up the title of this article then, because those keywords aren't found anywhere in that content. *shrug* -- Barfooz  (talk)  03:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This may be one of those rare cases when a legit term is not to be found on Google because it is most likely to be used by those farthest removed from posting stuff on the internet. I'm not comfortable calling for its deletion. -- BD2412 talk 03:25, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * So then we shouldn't delete it because it can't be verified? Delete unless proven to be real.  RickK 04:26, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't voting either way, just hoping someone would have some idea where to look to confirm/debunk. -- BD2412 talk 04:29, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)


 * Well, looks like this is real. (half way down the page). Good hunch, BD2412. Accordingly I am changing my vote to Keep and will rewrite the article as a pennance for my sin. -- Barfooz   (talk)  04:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's done. I'm slapping a disputed tag on it in the hopes that someone can verify the facts. I'm not really happy with the source of the information. Also, if this survives, it needs to be moved to Nizhal Thangal. -- Barfooz  (talk)  05:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete even if someone can find it verifiable this certainly isnt notable. JamesBurns 05:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notability's not a criterion for deletion. Notability is subjective. See Notable for more discussion of this. And most of all, I don't think we are qualified to make the decision about whether this is notable. Perhaps this is a quite important phenomenon in India. -- Barfooz  (talk)  06:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Nizhal Thangal. Verified by User:Xcali and User:Barfooz and NPOV. Well done. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Double Blue . -- BD2412  talk 21:14, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move I agree with BD2412 that I don't know enough to vote on the basis of notability here.  Since it has been verified, this needs to stay in the hope that a knowledgeable contributor will flesh it out one day. Xoloz 03:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .