Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna consciousness philosophy


 * 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. Courcelles 03:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Krishna consciousness philosophy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced essay. It seems like anything of encyclopedic value is already covered elsewhere. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 04:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not covered, because many people like you say it is done by someone else, so ultimately is practically nowhere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HareKrishnaPortal (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - Article creator has been blocked for POV pushing and disruptive editing. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 05:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Trojan horse POV push. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not easy to follow but it seems to be a POV fork of International Society for Krishna Consciousness and a plug for his doomed portal. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to a POV, possibly WP:OR. scope_creep (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to speedy delete as POV-pushing by a blocked editor who has made little to no attempt at contributing to the encyclopedia ever since he got here. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  21:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Krishna is obviously notable, but we have Hare Krishna etc already, I can not fathom why we need this article, too. There does not appear to be much if anything here worth salvaging. ErikHaugen (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems like a bit of personal religious POV-pushing, and it's written in an unsalvageable incoherent style. As already pointed out, we have Hare Krishna, which seems more than adequate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2010 (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.