Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anbukkodi Makkal

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, WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anbukkodi Makkal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches including the simplest found absolutely nothing at all so, given it's an Indian subject, I'm sure if sources are simply not easily accessible. However, it was started in June 2005 by an Indian IP and has not been significantly edited since so that concerns me. I'd like to invite fellow hoax hunter Calamondin12 for comment. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a hoax. Appears to be a rarely-used spelling; more common is Anbu Kodi Makkal. I've found references to "anbukkodi" as a symbol used by devotees of Ayya Vaikundar, such as page 47 of this document: "A global structure called “samattuva sangham” was created with a saffron flag with a white jwala (‘anbukkodi’) in the middle." It's unclear how much the term is actually used, however, so ideally an expert on religion in India may be able to offer some advice on whether to keep the article (which has very little real content) or to redirect to Ayyavazhi. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can't be left to guess what an article should be about, and in the absence of sources explaining the subject, there's no other way to proceed Kraxler (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.