Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah in hinduism


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Noah in hinduism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The claim relating to the subject is not sourced. Looks like original research. Anbu121 ( talk me ) 10:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect ideally to Manu (Hinduism), otherwise to Flood myth. Mephistophelian (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC).
 * There's no evidence for redirecting to Manu. The Manu article only says that the story is similar and that too unsourced. -- Anbu121  ( talk me ) 11:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: contrary to the overwhelming consensus, and my earlier interpretation, the article does not represent original research, but merely attempts to summarise an argument that recurs in various publications on Hinduism, Islam, and the emergence of Indo-European languages. While the above interpretations suggest that the author is inferring a connection between Noah and Manu, the comparison is actually derivative of published works, rather than a synthesis or an original hypothesis. Although I omitted a few publications that resembled fringe theories, the majority of the bibliography posits that (i) Noah is synonymous with Manu, (ii) Noah is merely comparable to Manu, or (iii) the comparisons between Noah, Manu, Gilgamesh, and Deucalion illustrate a common ancestry. Where authors recognise the common lineage of the deluge mythology, the significance they attribute to it typically relates to the development of Indo-European culture or the possibility of a cataclysmic event in prehistory. Mephistophelian (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Identifying Noah as Manu potentially violates WP:FRINGE, where the consensus among mainstream academicians is that these mythological figures are analogous rather than synonymous. Consider Klaus Klostermaier’s commentary, for example, on Haq: ‘He identifies Brahmā with Abraham, Sarasvati with Sarah, and Manu with Noah,’ then later: ‘Haq uses a series of fanciful etymological explanations of Indian words to demonstrate the presence of Islamic traditions in Hindu India' (2007: 405–6). If the identification of Noah as Manu is exceptional, WP:FRINGE therefore constitutes a more appropriate rationale for deletion than WP:ORIGINAL. Mephistophelian (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete as an article that misrepresents the notability of a hypothesis broadly unsupported in religious scholarship. Mephistophelian (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC).


 * Delete The article is original research and does not establish the notability of the topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Anbu121  ( talk me ) 17:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  Anbu121  ( talk me ) 17:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Anbu121  ( talk me ) 17:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete looks like OR. --regentspark (comment) 17:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - obvious original research. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No sources available for the topic. Secret of success (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect: The story of Flood myth is also common in Hindu mythology, see reference here, have added the same to the Manu (Hinduism) article, making it ideal for a redirect. --Ekabhishektalk 06:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The flood myth appears in different cultures. Manu is compared to Noah in this regard, but the identification is not explicit like Jesus in Islam (Isa).-- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:07, 2 September 2012 (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.