Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakta dhatu

: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 no consensus. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[Rakta dhatu]]=

:{{la|Rakta dhatu}} ([{{fullurl:Rakta dhatu|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakta dhatu}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Looks like an Indian name for blood tissue. The appropriate place for this information would be here. StaticGull Talk 12:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My recent edits clarify that it is a different topic then the MODERN and WESTERN concept of Blood disorders. Bhikshu_Nagarjuna

--Bhikshu Nagarjuna (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyedit to make it comprehensible to the Western reader, but keep as verifiable and probably notable. JFW | T@lk 05:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep per JFW. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete with fire. This is an original research thesis that constantly addresses an argument with the reader. Unintelligible, unencyclopedic drivel about how ancient obscure sanskrit texts refer to blood and blood disorders differently than modern medicine. No value or notability. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable unverified sub-aspect of a particular traditional medical practice. Truth or otherwise isn't the point - it's just not important. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Per JFK, and article needs inline citations. --Meld shal 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, a notable part of this belief system. See [http://books.google.com/books?id=wlJSAGRPNi4C&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=%22Rakta+dhatu%22&source=web&ots=NvKoOCH0HH&sig=UZmE2J5l7qRwRwMBzpecIcrNBBs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA61,M1 link] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=-JUcjUGBV6kC&pg=PA236&dq=%22Rakta+dhatu%22&ei=8eehSMDZG4j2jgHT84nDCg&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U2o1lrXm-ahJTSg3hFdHRvGFzW9ww link]. Article needs to be purged of any OR, but the subject itself is notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

::In the first source you list, the sentence is merely a simple explanation of what blood is (as if explaining it to a very young child) which substitutes Indian words for heart, blood, and artieries/ veins. The second source merely describes high blood pressure, and uses this Indian word for blood with a perenthetical "(blood tissue)" after it. These sources by no means establish importance of rhaktu dhatu as a separate entity from blood itself, and the second actually helps make the point that this is really just "blood" in another language. Surely you would not advocate separate articles for everything in every known language? That's what separate language wiki's are for. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete per AlexTiefling RogueNinja_talk 22:04, 12 August 2008 (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.