Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutra I

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sutra I

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

Dubious existence. This article has been tagged as a hoax since August 14, 2009. I have been unable to find anything to confirm this prince's existence; however, this may be because this prince lived in the tenth century. A Google Books search returns false positives. I cannot verify the prince's existence. The two external links/references in the article are not reliable sources, so they cannot be used.

If one reliable source is found to prove that this is not a hoax, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddayaknow. I found two and added them to the article. Please have a look, Cunard, and tell me if they are false posivites. Note: I looked for Mar-Zutra, and that's probably where the article should be moved to in place of the redirect that's currently there. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn The sources found by Drmies prove that this prince does indeed exist. Nice rescue! I'm certain that these aren't false positives because both the sources and the article discuss a prince that existed in the sixth century.
By the way, I have also nominated Hazub for deletion as a hoax. Both Sutra I and Hazub were created by Gonçalo-Manuel (talk · contribs) and tagged as hoaxes by Edward321 (talk · contribs). I have searched for alternative titles for Hazub (Khazuv and Chatzuv) as you did at Sutra I, but have been unable to find anything substantial. Can you find sources for Hazub, too? Cunard (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (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.