Historical Vaikundar : I've reviewed the sources and the extensive citations used, not seeing critical discussion of the individual's work that is needed to determine notability.  Nothing for GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 04:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is complicated, and might require a subject-matter expert to way in.  It's not about if sources exist, but whether this subtopic is sufficiently distinct.  Definitely at least a little bit of TNT needed, but I'm leaning weak keep--I can see it being more passable if it was very well written.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 06:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Everyone, This refers to the two articles published in the following links of Wikipedia under caption Ayya Vaikundar/Historical Vaikundar 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.  Expressed view that ‘The mission of the Destruction of Kali involves a joint role of Lord Narayana and Ayya Vaikundar’ leaves a feeling that Lord Ayya Vaikundar and Lord Narayana were two different personalities whereas Lord Vaikundar was incarnate of Lord Narayana himself.   The divine nature of Lord Vaikundar got revealed when the cruelty and tortures inflicted by the King of Travancore had in no way affected divine Lord Vaikundar who was in human form, instances of which find no mention anywhere in these articles.   Mention as Akilam and Akilathirattu confuse one to believe that they were two different texts.  Therefore in my opinion is that the contents should be redrafted to tell the life of Ayya Vaikundar based on the text Akilathirattu Ammanai alone, which is the primary source for all.  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.  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 or historical events involving Lord Vaikundar, mentioning the supporting documents wherever they are available including external documents available if any.  I would recommend deleting this page and redraft the contents in Ayya vaikundar page to reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar as per primary source holy akilathirattu and other supporting documents wherever they are available.  Also read, http://www.vaikundar.com/history-of-ayya-vaikundar.aspx https://www.ayyadharmapathi.com/history https://ayyavaikundar.in/ https://temple.dinamalar.com/news_detail.php? id=11667 contact: @ Illayaram sekar Thanks.  Illayaram sekar ( talk ) 16:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Hi Everyone, This refers to the two articles published in the following links of Wikipedia under caption Ayya Vaikundar/Historical Vaikundar 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.  Expressed view that ‘The mission of the Destruction of Kali involves a joint role of Lord Narayana and Ayya Vaikundar’ leaves a feeling that Lord Ayya Vaikundar and Lord Narayana were two different personalities whereas Lord Vaikundar was incarnate of Lord Narayana himself.  The divine nature of Lord Vaikundar got revealed when the cruelty and tortures inflicted by the King of Travancore had in no way affected divine Lord Vaikundar who was in human form, instances of which find no mention anywhere in these articles.  Mention as Akilam and Akilathirattu confuse one to believe that they were two different texts.  Therefore in my opinion is that the contents should be redrafted to tell the life of Ayya Vaikundar based on the text Akilathirattu Ammanai alone, which is the primary source for all.  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.  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 or historical events involving Lord Vaikundar, mentioning the supporting documents wherever they are available including external documents available if any.  I would recommend deleting this page and redraft the contents in Ayya vaikundar page to reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar as per primary source holy akilathirattu and other supporting documents wherever they are available.  Also read, http://www.vaikundar.com/history-of-ayya-vaikundar.aspx https://www.ayyadharmapathi.com/history https://ayyavaikundar.in/ https://temple.dinamalar.com/news_detail.php? id=11667 contact: @Illayaram sekar Thanks.  Illayaram sekar ( talk ) 12:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there is very low participation.  Please focus on policy issues and not theology.  This is not the place for it.  Actually, there is nowhere on Wikipedia where these long, unsourced posts on the divinity of Lords are appropriate.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:42, 20 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus