Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theopolitical Capital of Sikhs and 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   delete. WP:SNOW j⚛e deckertalk 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Theopolitical Capital of Sikhs and Sikhism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dubious POV rant that largely duplicates Amritsar. Jpatokal (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:FORKful of nastiness. Mangoe (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Biased and insufficiently sourced article that doesn't even use the term "theopolitical" outside its own title, thus failing to explain its ostensible subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, but merge parts complementing Amritsar and History of Sikhism (sans nastiness), which are not quite as detailed. Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - and I see no point in merging as there is no specific referencing for any of the material with only an indication that one book was used with no inline referencing, and no page numbers given. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - NPOV-violating fork; nothing there to salvage. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not encyclopedic, in my opinion. — ΛΧΣ  21™  01:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:POV pushing, consider salting. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Time to invoke WP:SNOW and close this? Jpatokal (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with nom. Vacation9 (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (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.