Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics of Hinduism


 * 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   procedural close per WP:SK. Use WP:DRN or WP:RfD as suggested. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 05:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ethics of Hinduism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a process nomination; desires to replace the article with a redirect to Hinduism, which I thought should be discussed here. Vectro (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a bloody waste of time. See the article talk page and note WP:RFD. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment From my perpspective (one who knows very little about Hinduism), the page seems to have useful/interesting content. If there are problems with the article, I'd rather see them resolved by improving the article rather than replacing the whole thing with a redirect. However, if there is a community consensus to replace with a redirect, I'd like to suggest the redirect should be tagged with . Someone will also have to clean up the 500+ pages that link to this one, including Hinduism itself. Vectro (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why the clean up? No rush - the links pipe through. I've already said that you are free to remove the redirect and build the article, just not using the sources that were there. If you can't accept that those are unreliable and that the creator was a pov-pushing sock then maybe you should review WP:CONSENSUS. We don't keep crap content but we don't necessarily delete articles just because the content is crap. Hence, the redirect and not, for example the CSD G5 that I could have opted for. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't think it's confusing to have links all over the place that say "Main Article: Ethics of Hinduism", only have that go to Hinduism itself? I have no opinion about the reliability of the article sources (being unable to evaluate them) or its creator, although I can see that the account is blocked. Vectro (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just done this at a template. That should get the link count down in one edit. Revert if you expand the article properly. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Still over 500. Maybe a cacheing issue? Vectro (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, caching. Regarding reliability: if you know next to nothing about the sources and feel unable to evaluate them and you also know next to nothing about the subject, why the heck do what you have done with this nomination? It seems senseless when you are up against someone who does know something about both, has a lot of experience and has told you where to look. For example, only last week there was a discussion at RSN regarding Raj sources - see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172 - and the same/similar sources are being used here. You'll also find discussions in past AfDs, at WP:DRN and at articles such as Talk:Yadav, not to mention WT:INB. We don't use them, period. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the creator, see Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika/Archive. They're persistent and, yes, it was the creator who added the link to that template also. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "fails to advance an argument for deletion", " editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Note that there are numerous books about Hindu ethics such as Hindu Ethics: A Philosophical Study and so the topic has great notability. Andrew (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2014 (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.