Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor


 * 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   merge to Arthashastra.  Sandstein  05:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seven ways to greet a neighbor

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Keep I actually do not support the deletion of this article, but an editor has questioned the notability of this concept. This is an important concept and has influenced modern day views on policial legitamacy, and overall is a useful article to have.  - down  load  ׀  sign!  21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. At the moment it is a copyviolation of its reference so is a speedy deletion candidate. I42 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, at the moment it is not a copyvio, as I have rephrased all the statements in the article. In addition, the descriptions were assumed to be copyvios though they were actually direct translations from the ancient Indian text.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Translations are, however, copyrightable. And, since there was a copyright notice on the website, it was a copyright violation to copy and paste things directly from the other website.  either way (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-phrasing or paraphrasing is still a copyright violation. Drawn Some (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that is not true. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? — neuro  (talk)  13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No longer a copyvio.  -  down  load  ׀  sign!  22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment OK, before anyone assumes that this is something from the late Mister Rogers, this refers to the Arthashastra, a text of the 4th Century BC, in ancient India, and it has to do with strategies for one nation dealing with another. From that article, it says that "The Arthashastra is divided into 15 books: I Concerning Discipline II The Duties of Government Superintendents III Concerning Law IV The Removal of Thorns V The Conduct of Courtiers VI The Source of Sovereign States VII The End of the Six-Fold Policy VIII Concerning Vices and Calamities IX The Work of an Invader X Relating to War XI The Conduct of Corporations XII Concerning a Powerful Enemy XIII Strategic Means to Capture a Fortress XIV Secret Means XV The Plan of a Treatise."  My suggestion is that the article author should determine which part of the Arthashastra this comes, if you want to save the article from the copyvio referred to (and missed by me) above. Mandsford (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To my information, this concept is actually spread amongst the separate books of the Arthashastra, particularly books 12-14. It merits a separate article as it has had a great influence on political rule and legitimacy.  -  down  load  ׀  sign!  21:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I have seen no evidence that this is "an important concept and has influenced modern day views on policial legitamacy [sic]." As I pointed out to the author on my talk page, I can't find these concepts in a text of the Arthashastra, and a Google search (yes, I know, probably not the best gauge for notability on a 2000+ year old concept) reveals that it's taught in some schools, but little else. either way (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its notability is proved, being part of the Arthashastra. This has little to do with the fact that it is "taught in some schools."   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just being part of it does not prove its notability for a standalone article. It can be merged/mentioned in the article on the full work.  either way (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notablity is NOT inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I phrased my comment in such a way that implied that I meant that. As I stated before, it is notable as it has a great impact on political legitimacy.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  21:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep restating this but haven't proven that it has a great impact. Can you please give sources that show its impact?  either way (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which is why I have contacted WikiProject Indian history for some help with that.  -  down  load  ׀  sign!  21:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To add further to my comment. This is currently failing one of the key needs for an article on Wikipedia: verifiability.  The author has a general idea of where this comes from within the text, but can't point to a specific location.  A specific point in the text where this concept exists needs to be given in order to verify this.  either way (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a copyright Violation. You would need to completely rewrite the section in question. I'm sorry, Download, but this won't do. T3chl0v3r (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No longer a copyvio.  -  down  load  ׀  sign!  22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete copyvio, and aside from that its notability isn't established. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is all this with copyvios? I see nothing that is copied from the source...   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the one who said you rephrased an article, which is a copvio. Drawn Some (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I rephrased it, which is why it's no longer a copyvio...  - down  load  ׀  sign!  22:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have A Look:


 * You paraphrased very lightly from the source, still a copyvio. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the source is a direct translation. I was under the impression that direct translations were allowed as the Arthashastra has no copyright.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty good essay on copyrights and translations. Read the sixth paragraph, in particular (it starts with "There are translations that...").  It essentially states that while the original text is in the public domain, a new translation of it can be considered original content.  either way (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  - down  load  ׀  sign!  22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. You should have cited the original document then, instead of the website. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No longer a copyvio.  -  down  load  ׀  sign!  22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So it's okay to violate copyright as long as you pretend later that it isn't? I have a problem with this. Drawn Some (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's try to keep cool here. They used it as a source.  They dramatically changed it so it no longer came close to violating copyright.  That matter is resolved. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated, the descriptions of the seven methods were translations. While the original text was not copyrighted, either way showed that some translations could be copyrighted. Therefore, I cut down even more on the descriptions.  - down  load  ׀  sign!  22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Changing vote to Speedy Keep because my issues have been resolved. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that notability and verifiability are expressed in this article? If so, how?  Thanks, either way (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is notable because the document is. I can nominate for merge into the main article about this book if you prefer.  I trust that source, however if someone wants to re translate... T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The document may be, but as pointed out above, the notability is not inherited. You'd need to prove why this section in particular is notable enough for its own article.  either way (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the topic is notable.  M C  10  |  Sign here!  22:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes it notable, as shown through reliable, independent sources? either way (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, after seeing the other responses, I decide to Merge this article as a section of the original article.  M C  10  |  Sign here!  00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are only a few Google hits and only one of them seems to be non-trivial reliable resource. Can someone provide non-trivial reliable resources in another language?  Otherwise, this is non-notable and non-verifiable and should be merged with the parent article.  I don't see the potential of this ever becoming a full article in English with available resources. Drawn Some (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you considered using printed sources?  -  down  load  ׀  sign!  22:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you considered using printed sources? You are the author of the article, and the onus falls on you to prove notability and provide sources to establish it.  either way (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. I was saying that it could very likely be possible to have the article become at least a C-class.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  23:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should hardly fall on editors at AfD to come up with printed sources in another language. If you can name some books I'll see if my local library system can get them for me because it just doesn't have any now.  Otherwise, you could have someone translate them and then make them available.  Otherwise, even if this concept were notable, and verifiable, given existing discoverable resources, it can't be made into a full encyclopedia article without WP:OR.  I'm going to go ahead and say Merge to Arthashastra. When it becomes significant enough to be an article it can be spun out. 23:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the merge template to the main article. T3chl0v3r (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. I searched for the title and got almost nothing. I also searched for some of the phrases alongside Arthashastra, and found no sources that discussed these principles in particular. There is no notability on its own. Fences and windows (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/delete to make this more than just a direct translation it would need to have some sourced critical commentary. And wikipedia is not the place for translations.--Salix (talk): 11:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The title is too generic and lacking in notability to stand by itself - too like innumerable self-help slogans (The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People) and the like (Seven Deadly Sins). Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete. There is too little here to justify a separate article from the parent, and the article is anyway lacking in context which the parent would provide. The title is too vague to provide a meaningful redirect; it doesn't appear to be a formal name anyway, rather a heading coined by the authors of the reference article (even if it is a formal name, it would be a translation and could therefore take many forms). I42 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Arthashastra. Not enough information to require its own article. There is nothing wrong with combining it with the main article. Reywas92 Talk  20:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability, too generic, nothing to merge. Verbal   chat  08:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Close

 * Have we reached a consensus to merge? T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If so, I will merge the article and Speedy Close this AFD. T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly is there to merge? We have an article with no verifiable information.  Why would we merge that into that article?  either way (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The info is verifiable from that source and would do just fine in the main article on this document. T3chl0v3r (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be an appropriate non-admin closure - there is not concnensus on merge/redirect vs merge/delete vs outright delete, and any deletion if so actioned would require an admin. I42 (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no way I would support a NAC, and I would certainly not like for this to be closed so early on with such an unclear consensus for action. — neuro  (talk)  11:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, One (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge and Redirect to Arthashastra. It's really more interesting there where it is in context and will find some extra readers so nothing is lost. (At first I thought it was about Mormon church outreach. :-) )Steve Dufour (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge & redirect, this is verifiable but not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect as non-notable, unless secondary sources are found discussing this material. As it stands, there's nothing upon which to base an article. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Arthashastra. Would have more standing in context, which everybody knows is nice . a little   insignificant  17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Arthashastra. Consensus to close now? Bearian (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge is a good compromise, as there is not enough for a standalone article, but still seems to be worthy of inclusion. --Susan118 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It would appear we all say Merge. If this is the case, we should go ahead and do it. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2009 (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.