Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism in Armenia


 * 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The result was  k eep - nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism in Armenia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Withdrawn because of improvements by gourangaUk. andy 13:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Contested prod. Article is unencyclopedic and not NPOV. Its purpose seems to be to provide a platform for Hare Krishnans to complain about persecution. References are almost entirely to the ISKON website or to POV web pages - there are no "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as per WP:VER - "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" andy 22:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator.--Svetovid 23:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Couldn't have said it any better myself. --Nonstopdrivel 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. This is a list of statistics and news events, setting aside the question of the reliability of the source. Important, as there are human rights issues involved, but not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it has references. Just because you don't agree with them is no reason to delete the article.--D-Boy 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article is part of the "X religion in Y country" series. The article is also well-referenced, and if it does not represent a NPOV, that is not a reason to delete, but a reason to improve.  The topic itself is notable.  --musicpvm 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's an important topic - no-one is saying otherwise - but a very bad article. The issues are the quality and independence of the references (they are poor and in the main not neutral) and the neutrality of the article. If anyone wants to improve it by supplying real references and rewriting the polemical bits I'll happily withdraw my nomination. andy 08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions.   -- andy 08:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete/Clean It is hopelessly written at the moment, full of Original Research. If someone has the balls to remove all the junk and turn the article into a reasonable stub, I'll support keeping it. I don't quite understand the well referenced argument, since there aren't any citations and half of the external links are in fact spam. GizzaChat  &#169; 09:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Keep Now that it has been superbly cleaned by Gouranga. Good work. GizzaChat  &#169; 06:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Relevant aspects of the topic can be covered at Hinduism and forked as necessary based on developments at the main article. This is POV pushing original research and should not be kept, although w/out prejudice for recreation should the main Hinduism article require it. Eusebeus 15:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and DaGizza. I don't quite see the necessity of creating articles about a religion's presence in each and every country in the world - only if there is sufficient information. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the existance of Islam in Armenia-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletions.   --  Sef rin gle Talk 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This deletion debate is about the poor quality of Hinduism in Armenia -- lack of adequate references, POV, etc. The existence of Islam in Armenia or any other Wikipedia article has no bearing on these issues. andy 06:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Than it would be POV to delete this article but keep Islam in Armenia. We need to be consistent on wikipedia with religous articles.-- Sef rin gle Talk 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't understand the rationale behind the POV argument - you should read the links in the AfD nomination at the top of this page to familiarise yourself with the policies. Hinduism in Armenia was a rubbish article (it's not any more so it will probably be kept, anyway). What have other articles got to do with that? You might just as well say that it would be POV to delete it and yet keep Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, which is another article that has absolutely no bearing on the quality of Hinduism in Armenia. If you think that Islam in Armenia should be deleted then you can nominate it by using afd. andy 06:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except I don't think Islam in Armenia should be deleted. I don't think either should be deleted. But it would be POV to keep one and not the other.-- Sef rin gle Talk 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Where's the POV? If there were articles about Hinduism in Armenia, Islam in Armenia, Christianity in Armenia, Judaism in Armenia, Buddhism in Armenia, Paganism in Armenia and so on and they were all well written and well referenced articles apart from Hinduism in Armenia why should we keep that article just because the other ones were better?! Rubbish is rubbish. This was a rubbish article until Gouranga(UK) fixed it. andy 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then we can stop arguing about this, because it is irrelevant, seeing how you now want to keep the article. -- Sef rin gle Talk 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep POV is not a reason for deleting an article unless the POV problems are intractable. I would keep this article a while longer and see if it can be cleaned up.  We can always delete it on the second go-round if it does not improve. --Richard 06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's also the unreliable references and the fact that the meat of the article is just a list of (unreferenced) news items. AfD should be a wakeup call to the author(s) to improve it or lose it. andy 07:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Clean-up & Keep - Yes the article is currently a mess, but if the unencyclopedic information was removed the article could have some justification to remain, or at least be merged (along with other smaller articles) into another page such as Hinduism in Eastern Europe. It might be better to have one detailed article than several smaller ones? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have since done some rough clean-up of the article. Gouranga(UK) 10:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good. It looks keepable to me but I'd like to leave the AfD running for another day or so to get some other opinions, particularly about your idea of merging similar small articles which sounds very sensible to me. andy 11:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - per gourangaUk. Baka man  16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.Anwar 18:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep valid topic, looks a lot better than it did a few days ago. IP198 19:44, 18 June 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.