Talk:Ethics of Hinduism
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Sitush in topic Redirect/Deletion
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was procedural close per WP:SK#1. |
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Redirect/Deletion
editThe conversation below is copied from my talk page. Vectro (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Please note the creator of Ethics of Hinduism, note that the sources are unreliable and note that there was no suggestion of deleting the article - it was redirected to an article that covers the subject. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I left a message on your talk page. In short, I think removal of this much material should be discussed beforehand in order to develop a consensus. Vectro (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, tough, I guess. The sources have already been discussed on multiple occasions across literally hundreds of articles and dispute resolution noticeboards. Similarly, the creator was just a damn nuisance: a POV-pushing sock. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'll refer you to relevant Wikipedia guideline on this issue: "If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been formally deleted. If editors cannot reach consensus, the article should be formally submitted to a deletion discussion." There does seem to be a lack of consensus; you and I obviously disagree, and there is no discussion on the article's talk page. I'll open an AfD unless you disagree or wish to do so yourself (IMHO it would make more sense for you to be the nominator). Vectro (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really give a crap about wikilawyer types, sorry, but if you want to play that game then here you go. The article should not be deleted because I think it possible that someone could make a decent fist of the subject, which almost certainly is notable; the content that was present should not be retained because it is invalid; therefore, we redirect. Why do you think I didn't ask for a speedy G5 - you are not talking to a newbie here. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember to stay civil and assume good faith. We're all here to improve the encyclopedia. Keep in mind that changing the article to a redirect can be an outcome of an AfD discussion. Are you opposed to discussing this at AfD? If so, can you clarify why? It seems you think the article should be tagged with {{Redirect with possibilities}}, is that right? If so, do you want to make that change? Vectro (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- So, you are going to nominate something at AfD that you think should be kept? That's a rather novel approach. I've already explained why AfD is pointless: the article subject might be notable but none of the content is acceptable, per decisions at WP:RSN, WP:DRN and hundreds of articles related to India + the fact that the creator and major contributor is a known POV-pushing sock. That is why it has been retained as a redirect rather than deleted. And I've remained civil: you just don't seem to understand how that policy works, either. That's often a problem with wikilawyers. I haven't, for example, told you to fuck off and nor would I. If you want to remove the redirect and build the article from scratch then that's fine by me but if you introduce any of those Raj sources etc again or leave it as a stub then the thing will be redirected again because Hinduism does that job. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I suppose I'll open an AfD and we can take it from there. I'll move this conversation over to the article's talk page for reference. Vectro (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fine. Nothing like meeting a jobsworth while I've got one eye on the cup final. You've got a fight on your hands now, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood; I'm not opposed to removal of the article contents, I just think it shouldn't be done without discussion. Vectro (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fine. Nothing like meeting a jobsworth while I've got one eye on the cup final. You've got a fight on your hands now, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I suppose I'll open an AfD and we can take it from there. I'll move this conversation over to the article's talk page for reference. Vectro (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- So, you are going to nominate something at AfD that you think should be kept? That's a rather novel approach. I've already explained why AfD is pointless: the article subject might be notable but none of the content is acceptable, per decisions at WP:RSN, WP:DRN and hundreds of articles related to India + the fact that the creator and major contributor is a known POV-pushing sock. That is why it has been retained as a redirect rather than deleted. And I've remained civil: you just don't seem to understand how that policy works, either. That's often a problem with wikilawyers. I haven't, for example, told you to fuck off and nor would I. If you want to remove the redirect and build the article from scratch then that's fine by me but if you introduce any of those Raj sources etc again or leave it as a stub then the thing will be redirected again because Hinduism does that job. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember to stay civil and assume good faith. We're all here to improve the encyclopedia. Keep in mind that changing the article to a redirect can be an outcome of an AfD discussion. Are you opposed to discussing this at AfD? If so, can you clarify why? It seems you think the article should be tagged with {{Redirect with possibilities}}, is that right? If so, do you want to make that change? Vectro (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really give a crap about wikilawyer types, sorry, but if you want to play that game then here you go. The article should not be deleted because I think it possible that someone could make a decent fist of the subject, which almost certainly is notable; the content that was present should not be retained because it is invalid; therefore, we redirect. Why do you think I didn't ask for a speedy G5 - you are not talking to a newbie here. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'll refer you to relevant Wikipedia guideline on this issue: "If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been formally deleted. If editors cannot reach consensus, the article should be formally submitted to a deletion discussion." There does seem to be a lack of consensus; you and I obviously disagree, and there is no discussion on the article's talk page. I'll open an AfD unless you disagree or wish to do so yourself (IMHO it would make more sense for you to be the nominator). Vectro (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, tough, I guess. The sources have already been discussed on multiple occasions across literally hundreds of articles and dispute resolution noticeboards. Similarly, the creator was just a damn nuisance: a POV-pushing sock. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- The point at issue here seemed to be some quotations. They were not suitable as a lead in our customary format so I have provided a brief lead based upon an excellent source which provides a general survey of the topic and an extensive bibliography. I am not familiar with the extensive lists of commandments which follow but, as that material does not seem to be disputed, think we should retain them pending further development. Andrew (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- No. The entire content is disputed because of its origins. That you, like Vectro, have joined in with the admission that you know nothing about the subject is very frustrating. Do some reading first, please. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Merge?
editThere seems to be extensive overlap between this article and Niyama, perhaps they should be merged? Vectro (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- This article is now a redirect again. I really do not believe that Andrew Davidson actually read all of those sources before, by and large, reinstating them. The citations were mostly those of Rockin It Loud, complete with weird formatting etc, and it is well documented that RIL is a pov-pushing sock. You'll have to write it from the ground up and then determine whether there is anything to merge. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)