Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Sikhism


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 12:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Sikhism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While the topic per se may be valid, this is a piece of WP:OR and WP:POV (the section on weaponry, for example). WP:TNT is required if the topic itself is to be retained Fiddle   Faddle  10:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a hypocrisy if it can criticize harmless and peaceful religions like Jainism but then defend Sikhism. If you feel that it is from a point of view and is baseless and sourceless then take a look, so far I have provided evindence from the Guru Granth Sahib itself. For weaponry you can search up all the stroies of Sikhs misusing their weapons. I was still working on it but since you want to delete it why should I waste time here. -Manpreet Kaur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manpreet kaur101 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No-one is defending Sikhism, nor attacking it. The article is not up to the standard we retain here. That is all. Fiddle   Faddle  11:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Then how am I to bring it up to the standard you retain here? --Manpreet kaur101 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am responding on your talk page. Fiddle   Faddle  11:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Before this entry is closed, I would like to tell to Manpreet kaur101 that there's no problem if you made such page, but point is that criticism is not always based upon whether the subject or it's elements are peaceful or not. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and other religions currently have similar pages. Lordmacdonald (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * but notice we never seem to have any articles which praise the topics which are criticised. Such coverage always has a negative and hostile bias, contrary to WP:NPOV. Warden (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete An attack page contrary to core policy and WP:SOAP. Warden (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To cite WP:NPOV that would require that this page be not possible to be written neutrally, yet I don't think you are making that claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The title frames the topic in a way that is inherently biased. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish polemics. Warden (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The title? There are a very large number of criticism of X articles and I don't think any are inherently biased because of that. The article as it stands at the moment is not a Polemic. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't know if there is a valid article to be had on this topic, but this is not it. This is an opinion piece, and has no place on Wikipedia. If there is a valid article to be had, I think it should be started from scratch using reliable sources. Lady  of  Shalott  17:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I have tried to neutralize the worst of the editorializing, but I still think the article should be rebooted. Lady  of  Shalott  17:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk) 18:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 
 * Weak Keep At present it's not an attack page, but merely unsourced. No one appears to be arguing that the topic is not notable. There appears to be a tradition of criticism which satisfies GNG:, critique through Sikhism studies is discussed in sources:, at the very least it appears that a neutral article can be written with the sort of critique that Sikhism studies provides. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - 1. AfD is not for cleanup. 2. This is surely sourceable; see WP:BEFORE. 3. Currently NPOV. 4. There's a whole category of such articles, and a navbox, too! Bearian
 * Keep As per above, plenty of precedent for this type of article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It is part of a wider series of 'Criticism of (Relegion)' pages, so it should be kept. Videomaniac29 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps editors should look at the article. The sole 'valid' line remaining is "Sikhism has been criticized in one way or another by proponents of other religions. ", a line that is actually all waffle. All else has flags requiring citations, and that is just one paragraph. Fiddle   Faddle  13:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article at the moment is bad, but the real question is can a good article be written. Most of the sources are not in English so it may be quite difficult to work with if you are an English speaker, but there is the potential that someone can improve this. Since the topic is notable, the stub provides a starting point for people to work from, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. The question for all articles here is whether they assert sufficient notability to remain here, and whether that notability is verified in reliable sources. Many topics may have good articles written about them. Fiddle   Faddle  09:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Very Weak Delete. I wholeheartedly agree with the above keep !votes.  AfD is not for cleanup, the subject is inherently notable, and this article just needs some attention.   The reason I'm going with delete is that seems that no one at this time (including myself) is willing to give this article the attention that it needs.   Rather than have a one-sentence sub-stub lingering forever more, it might be best to just delete the article for now and wait for someone who is willing to create an actual article to come along to recreate it.   To me, having no article is better than having an article with no meaningful content. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn given the fact the article has been rebooted. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 06:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The topic is perhaps valid, but there is nothing here worth preserving at this point.  Completely unsourced essay content needs to go. -- Mojo Hand (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the additional content added by User:Atethnekos is enough to fix the fundamental problem and to make a valid start of it. Kudos to Atethnekos.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No encyclopedic content and possible original research. Nothing in the article is a notable criticism of Sikhism (a criticism would have to be discussed in reliable sources before it was mentioned). The one remaining criticism is trivial (compared to criticisms of misogyny, warmongering, child abuse, totalitarianism, support for slavery, etc, levelled against Abrahamic religions) and there are no sources to show either that it has ever been made except by the editor, or that it's important in any way. As above commenters say, nothing worth saving: no encyclopedic content. I'd be very happy to see a proper article on this subject, but this isn't even a beginning. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I added some sourced material for something to build on. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Sikhism&diff=576183398&oldid=576135578) -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep : So much more can be added into this subject. No need to delete such page at all. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As the article stands today, WP:TNT has taken place. It is now a radically different article from the one I proposed for deletion. I would not consider nominating the current article, and thus withdraw the nomination. I suggest, though, that this discussion run its course and be closed in the usual manner. It seems to me to have had too many opinions expressed to be closed as withdrawn. Fiddle   Faddle  23:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Timtrent, I already made few changes in the article, which clears much of the issues that we had with the page, previously. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per nominator's withdrawl. The article has been wholly re-written, and fits in the larger set of criticism articles. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2013 (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.