Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical Vaikundar

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Historical Vaikundar}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Historical Vaikundar}})

the article available in links of Wikipedia under the caption Ayya Vaikundar/Historical Vaikundar is factually wrong, Its against the primary source Akilathirattu ammanai Bindhur (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayya_Vaikundar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Vaikundar.

The two divergent articles referred to above, according to me has inherent contradictions in both, and does not reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar, who was reportedly the incarnate of Lord Narayana if one go by the text Akilathirattu Ammanai, which is akin to Veda Agama to the followers of Lord Vaikundar as the contents in them are reportedly dictated by the Lord himself to his disciple Hari Gopalan.

The observation that ‘few events referred to in the mythology have yet to be validated historically’, events mentioned in the historical Vaikundar, mention that ‘Research scholars regard Vaikundar as a teacher, healer and also a miracle worker’ cast doubt whether Lord Vaikundar was indeed divine incarnate or a human being like a preacher? Ayya Vaikundar was certainly not a healer or miracle worker like preachers, but divine incarnate and cured the suffering by his divine power like Perfect Masters of yester years.

My opinion is that, the documents should be redrafted to tell the life of Ayya Vaikundar based on the text Akilathirattu Ammanai, which is the primary source for all along with secondary sources as evidence.

If what I have read, understood and found in several sources was that Lord Vaikundar was undoubtedly Lord Narayana’s incarnation, manifested on earth in human form to end the misery and sufferings of eighteen classes of oppressed and suppressed in the deep southern states especially in Kerala where he commenced the reforms, series of social and self-respect movements etc were commenced subsequently toed by other eminent contemporary personalities like Narayana Guru, Chattampi Swamikal, Vallalar and Ayyankali.

Therefore it would be appropriate if the life glory of Vaikundar is outlined strictly based on Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool without any deviation and historical events involving his presence his acts in human form can be classified year wise beginning from his manifestation, followed by different phases of penance, complaints of missionaries to the British Govt, acts of King of Travancore, imprisoned in jail and his release, marriages (Thirukalyanam), Muthiri Kinaru, establishments of Nizhal Thangals and Thuvayal Thavasu etc on various occasions. They could come as historical timeline of historical events involving Lord Vaikundar, mentioning the supporting documents wherever they are available including external documents available if any. Thanks

Strong Keep, Both articles are totally from different perspectives.

:Ayya Vaikundar is a belief/mythology article based on Ayyavazhi beliefs, Ayyavazhi Mythology. The details here is elobrated upon in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of Ayyavazhi. Moreover there are hundreds of commentaries/thesis/lectures/books published in Tamil, Malayalam and English languages based on this; and few are mentioned in the reference section too. Ayya Vaikundar is a spiritual figure worshipped by million predominantly in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. And so the spiritual views over him (based on Sacred texts Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool) matters.

:On the other hand Historical Vaikundar refers to the life and teachings of Ayya Vaikundar, being reconstructed purely from a historical perspective with reference to various historical sources in contrast to the mythological Akilamic views as mentioned explicitly in the intro of the article. The Historical views over Vaikundar equally matters because the social impact of the teachings of Vaikundar have had significant impact in South Indian Society generally; Specifically it impact over the Tamil and Keralite society is huge as briefed in the intro section again

::" Ayya Vaikundar was the first to succeed as a social reformer in launching political struggle, social renaissance as well as religious reformation in the country. Vaikundar was the pioneer of the social revolutionaries of south India and Kerala. Research scholars regard Vaikundar as a teacher, healer and also a miracle worker. He was also said to be the forerunner of all social reformers of India. He was in the forefront of movements for Human Rights and Social Equality. His teachings also effected many social changes in southern India, resulting in the emergence of a series of social and self-respect movements such as Upper cloth agitation, Temple entry agitation and other movements including those of Narayana Guru, Chattampi Swamikal, Vallalar and Ayyankali."

: Academics often confuse the historical as well as the spiritual perspective over Vaikundar . Because both the academic disciplines, the Humanity/Society and Spirituality/Belief/Philosophy have mutually inconsistent opinions over several events, instances, happenings etc. Hence both articles are needed to reflect the different perspectives which often goes mutually contradictory otherwise. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 11:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete I've read the article and still can't understand what it's about. I don't find any sources for this "thing" the article talks about and it's too muddled to figure out what to be looking for. Seems to be about a religious person that either does or doesn't exist. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• :Your level of ignorance is unbelievable that after such lengthy elaborations in the article you couldn't figure out what the article is about! Nomination of this article here (which was based on multiple third party sources) is Injudicious.

• :Academics all across Tamil Nadu and Kerala, including multiple university publications refer to the historical validity of the activities of Vaikundar and its impact. Please Be Responsible before making unwarranted opinions. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 15:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• ::It badly needs a rewrite or TNT in this case. Still leaning !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• ::It's not clandestine, the article is too wordy and ref-bombed out the wazoo. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• :::It is too wordly simply because it should be. Because, the article is about a personality who is considered as the front-runner of all social reformations in South India whose impact initiated atleast half a dozen Social Reformers consequently. Citing sources regularly is Ref-bombing?!!? I couldn't understand. Most of the Books cited are Publications from reputed Universities and Credible Biographers.- Vaikunda Raja:talk: 16:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• ::::No, in the intro at least, every second or third word is cited. It seems excessive. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• :::::Most of the sentences are compound and complex since they are condensed with information; This is normal in Wikipedia. See this article. It is to be noted that years back somebody came up and complained that the article Ayyavazhi is not cited adequately. It's natural; But see to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayyavazhi&oldid=55200530 what extend that user went]! He placed "{{fact}}" template at 90 individual sentence/words across the article. I was fresh to wikipedia then and was not aware of the MOS completely. Nevertheless, the regulations/guidelines of Wikipedia were not fully defined those days (comparing today's) since Wiki was still developing. 17 years later, now it is been complained that the article was "Ref-bombed"!
• :::::Leaving it aside, Will you vote for an article TO BE DELETED on the ground that "it is over referenced"?! that too in lead section alone?! - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• ::::::No, it's not notable as the nominator suggests. It could be merged into the main article about he person perhaps. Ref-bombing it is neither helping nor hindering notability. Rest is gravy at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• :::::::I Strongly agree to delete this page. Since its redundant and create confusion to the readers. The historical perspective can be added in the Main Article Ayya Vaikundar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayya_Vaikundar). The content written in this page is factually wrong, there are two characters are mixed up here. One is Sampoornadevan and another one is Vaikundar. This is the self-made article with wrong information, its against the primary source Akilathirattu Ammanai. My question is, What we are going to achieve by doing this?
• :::::::The Article about Sampoornadevan already exists, here you go. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampooranathevan)
• :::::::The Article about Ayya Vaikundar already exists, here you go.
• :::::::(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayya_Vaikundar)
• :::::::Pls refer external sources of information:
• :::::::http://www.vaikundar.com/history-of-ayya-vaikundar.aspx
• :::::::I Kindly request to delete this page. Truth alone Triumphs. Bindhur (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• ::::::::I respect your belief and sentiments. You believe Vaikundar as a God incarnate. Then why you are bothering about the critical Historical views in a history article. (OR) Why you are arguing for adding the historical interpretation to the belief related article which may go contrary to your beliefs! - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 14:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• :::::::Why it should be merged into the main article? Why Historical Jesus was not merged with Jesus Article. The question of notability does not arises since we are speaking about a personality who is the forerunner of social changes across India; which means who impacted one-seventh or atleast 500 million people directly.
• :::::::Another major reason HERE is, both articles or not different perspectives about a same person. 4 Different personalities are involved with one character. Narayana, Sampooranathevan, Mudisoodum Perumal and Ayya Vaikundar. The spiritual amalgamation of all these characters is as per the Ayyavazhi Mythology. That is described in Ayya Vaikundar article. This view shall not be ignored since he is being believed as supreme God by tens of millions of people. (Actually, the complex relationships between these characters is not detailed in the article now. It's a laborious process and I am working on it).
• :::::::Our subject here is about the historical validity of the Personality. We might have ignored the Historical perspective if the social impact of him is negligible when compared to the religious one. We cannot go by the line that every religions personality shall impact the society socially as well as religiously. THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. The Historical view about Vaikundar is directly against the religious views over him. While he is just a Social Reformer Historically he is the supreme most worshippable God as per Ayyavazhi Mythology.
• :::::::The most important thing is that, these two articles ARE NOT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ABOUT ONE PERSON TO MERGE BOTH OF THEM. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 14:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• ::::::::You are passionate about the subject, we understand. I'd simply let the process play out at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• :::::::::Yon need not be dispassionate to be rational. Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 15:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - not sure why there is a debate at this point; there's a religious figure with religious significance who also had a historical life. The pages are significantly different and the content is well sourced from what I can see. Both potentially need cleanup, but I don't see any compelling reason for delete or merge. JMWt (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.