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.
Delete. Totally unsourced, and most of it unverifiable. That alone suggests deletion, but checking the history of the article, I find the original text (which is still there, with minor changes, but more has been added) is sufficiently out of line with anything in any source that I can find to make it fairly clear that it was a hoax. The result of that is that we have an article which is totally unsourced, most of ut unsourceable, and a significant part of it probably a hoax. No justification at all for keeping it. JBW (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Yes. Originally I thought this was certainly a hoax, but then I read that discussion, as far as it had gone at the time, and reduced my opinion to "fairly clear" that "a significant part of it [is] probably a hoax", as I said above. That is why I posted here rather than speedily deleting the article. I should have also removed the speedy deletion tag, but I missed doing that. I have now read the current version of the discussion you mentioned, and further information has been added, which makes me think it is not a hoax. However, I still think it should be deleted. JBW (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is completely unsourced and at least the part about Apostle Thomas is clearly a hoax, and the other part, about "prominent families" bearing that name, seems spurious too. We have an article on a Kalloor Oommen Philipose, but there it's a personal name, and generally the name (in this spelling) doesn't seem to be common. So, without verifiable content, there is no need for an article. Gawaon (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm near certain this is how the article started, and it probably just got picked up and turned into a hoax.. a really long-running one at that, though it may have gotten to the point where deletion of the link is most favorable Cringe AG (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen that last article and quickly wondered about it: if his name is "Yoohanon Chrysostom Kalloor" (with Kalloor being the last name), then why is the article named Yoohanon Chrysostom?Gawaon (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although Indian naming customs can be quite varied, this simply appears to be a case of someone changing his name after becoming a bishop. The official diocese website [2], other sources like [3], and Wikipedia (St. Jude Syro Malankara Catholic Church) say that he formerly went by the name "John Kalloor" and now goes by "Yoohanon Chrysostom". I don't think his name is actually "Yoohanon Chrysostom Kalloor" as the Wikipedia article states. Malerisch (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2024 (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.