Deletion of Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil

Comment: No appropriate sources provided as required by  and recommended by .  (This includes earlier versions of the article which provided several external links that were also not suitable as source material
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: per , ,  and . I tagged the secondary page 5 months ago now, and upon my tagging, the user Tinucherian removed the tags. I then restored them. The same action was taken upon the AFD being listed. I believe there is a place for these articles, but in no way in the way they are right now do they warrant a place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of information of original thought. Since I tagged the page, no efforts have been made by the page's creators to improve the matters addressed, which I listed in detail on the talk page. Since there's an obvious lack of intention to bring the article inline with Wiki standards, I see no choice but to support deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:TONE||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: My understanding is that the Saint Thomas Christians (like many Indian communities, and also Christian Communities in the Middle East) were endogamous for so long that they have virtually become a separate ethnicity.  The traditions (even if unhistoric) of the Saint Thomas Christians as to their origin are potentially suitable for an article in WP.  The nominated article contains a number of references, so that this cannot be dismissed as purely .  The problem is that there are at least two other articles on this group.  These should probably be merged.  This article, at present displays considerable problems in that it is trying to be several things at once: it is trying to be (1) a family history (2) an account of the origins of the Syriac Christians of India.  I do not know enough to determine whether the family are notable.  If the claims made above about the family are correct, they should be set out in an article on the family.  It would help of citations were formatted correctly, using the markup material that appears below the edit window, but that is an issue of detail.  I think that the answer is to '''keep for now''', but with the threat of a further AFD procedure, if the specialist editors cannot produce a series of decent articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)