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. MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnagarbhas[edit]

Multiple issues tagged since August: No reliable sources, non-neutral poing of view. I de-prodded this myself because the reasons for the PROD seemed poor, and I have tried to coach the creator of the article to improve it, but it has not been improved enough and is not a credit to the encyclopedia as currently written. Fayenatic (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no references to this that do not trace back to Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Laden with POV. Non notable. ←Spidern → 23:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Zero sharp (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems likes an interesting cross-cultural article, but needs a truly heavy-duty cleanup from someone who knows the subject, which has apparently been tried and is not happening. - idunno271828 (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources are circular, how odd. JBsupreme (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2008 (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.