Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahmin Contributions to Other Religions


 * 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 delete.--cj | talk 15:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Brahmin Contributions to Other Religions

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unencyclopedic topic, makes ridiculous claims, the "sources" used are POV and not reliable Orpheus 00:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Orpheus.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. To expand: (1) article makes unsubstantiated claims (e.g., "there exist Brahmins of other religions and throughout history, the Brahmins of these other religions have contributed greatly towards their religion."), (2) is based on liberal interpretation of "brahmins" and "contributions" (see sections titled "Well-wishers") and (3) is largely/completely based on original research and synthesis which is to be avoided by itself and, particularly so, if it pushes a POV. Abecedare 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and source better. The reasons given don't make a case for deletion of the topic, just better sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The material in the article is covered quite well in other articles already. The reason the article exists is that one user kept getting his POV rewriting of those sections reverted, so he took his bat and ball and wrote his own article instead. The reason I think it should be deleted instead of rewritten is that overlap. The small fraction of useful content in the article exists elsewhere already, where it fits better. Orpheus 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pointers to some of these other articles would be helpful. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to Comment See Special:Contributions/Maleabroad. Thank you. GizzaChat  &#169; 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I move to Delete very POV'd and promoting a agenda--Kathanar 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep on first look the article appears to encyclopedic. It obvoiusly has POV issues and is semi-protected.  Most of the arguments to delete given above are right of the list Deletion_policy and given articles history I question the motivation for the AfD also the user that originally proded the article has a significant history  Special:Contributions/DaGizza with the article and it's subject before the prod.  Signed Jeepday 04:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how DaGizza has a "significant history" when he made one reversion. If you want "significant history", look at the contributions of the article creator instead. I fail to see the conflict of interest mentioned below. Orpheus 09:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the topic might be encyclopedic, this article is not.  Otherwise concur with nom.  Edeans 05:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Encyclopedic topic and per COI issues. Baka man  05:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Abecedare. /Blaxthos 06:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Orpheus and others. The topic is not encyclopedic, no references for supposed facts and wrong academic claims. Shabdiz 07:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Needs clean-up and references. Axl 07:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep this article needs a good clean-up and maybe even a rewrite before it could be accepted. Topic is encyclopedic I guess. ← A NAS  Talk? 08:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete In theory, we could have an article narrating academic discussions of this topic (if indeed there are any). In practice, this, and probably anything else we may produce will be nothing other that original research and point of view, at best nodding to some external sources to defend a point of the original wikipedia thesis. Because in theory it can be done, I used to vote keep on this type of thing, but we just end up with a crappy mess of an article every time.--Docg 10:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic topic, original research, NPOV issues. Terence Ong 12:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doc G has it in a nutshell. This will always be original research and POV. These kind of articles never improve. Save it, come back in one, two, three years and it will still be just as bad. --Folantin 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Doc G and Folantin. OR synthesis at best. Moreschi Deletion! 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not really relevant, as well as per nom. Telly   addict  17:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete', unencyclopedic.--Aldux 19:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Whilst I don't agree that this topic is entirely en-encyclopaedic, I also can't believe that this article will ever be anything but OR, as it seems unlikely that there is going to be a flurry of scholarly research on the issue. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original prodder and per Doc. GizzaChat  &#169; 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete certain claims in this article are unsubstantiated and might be found offensive by some representatives of other religions. e.g. the last paragraph in the article --Boookabooo 10:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Certainly encyclopeadic. Needs to be cleaned up though ! -- N R S | T/M\B
 * Delete - per nom and per Doc. utcursch | talk 13:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.