Deletion of Mappila Malayalam

Comment: into Malayalam language since the article is |content fork. Although not "Mappila Malayalam" (in that order), here is one use of "Malayalam Mappila": http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/04/stories/2007090454950600.htm Malayalam Mappila poet Bappu Velliparambu. Here are some uses of Arabi-Malayalam. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2005/03/18/stories/2005031802610300.htm Therefore, the legend lives through a unique trans-literary genre called Arabi-Malayalam., http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/18/stories/2007021806850300.htm Mr. Varma said the seminar would also include sessions on `Chavittu Natakam,' `Arabi Malayalam' script, Theyyam, poetry, http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/11/stories/2007061101840200.htm The `isapat' in Arabi Malayalam adds to the colourfulness of the poem
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: Article is mostly |original research. Salvage any useful (and verifiable) content to the Malayalam article under Malayalam#Dialects_and_external_influences
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: It is not relevant that this language might not be know by Wikipedians or even that it might be a desire by the reilable sources to promote it as a language. There are two references cited in that article: '''(1)''' Chaitanya's Book ''Kerala:India, the land and the people.'' and '''(2)''' ''Dravidian encyclopaedia''. It is not |Wikipedia original research to cite to those references. In other words, the cited references can be original research; the article cannot. Unless there is consensus that these references do not support the article, I do not yet see a policy reason to delete the article. In other words, please stop giving your personal opinions and start discussing the reliable source material. Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Though your concerns are not without merit, this article is notable and verifiable. Claiming that the content of a certain subject is heresy or idiocy will not get the article deleted; this is censorship and |Wikipedia is not censored. If you feel the article is incorrect, your best interests would be to edit the article and find sources with which to countermand its facts, or perhaps create another article addressing the fallacies within this. However, outright deletion is not the answer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)