Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible translations into Oriya

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 Keep. Michig (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bible translations into Oriya

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

Should we need articles like these??? No references. Doesn't serve a clear picture. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staggering - be interesting to see if this gathers any 'support' !votes. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Oriya_language#Literature or Oriya literature. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lugnuts the existence of these stubs is the result of demerge discussion about 3 years to chop up the ghastly [Bible translations into second-tier languages] article, that discussion had bundles of things like tribal China languages and American Indian languages, but major state languages like Oriya just need adding sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IIO. Didn'y know that, and I know see it's part of a bigger series. So Keep. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously important topics, sufficiently so that there is no need to merge. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it did already have a reference when nominated, has a further source now, is notable, and forms part of a series of articles. – Fayenatic London 20:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This refers to a major Indian language. The alternative might be to merge and redirect to an article on Bibnle translation into Indian languages, but that is likely to be less satisfactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2014 (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.