Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethic of reciprocity

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 keep. CitiCat ^♫ 00:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethic of reciprocity

Ethic of reciprocity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is full of empty sections, is poorly sourced, full of empty sections, POV, and gives undue weight to Islam Sefringle^Talk 05:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• It seems appropriate to have an article on the golden rule. The claim that this is not a deontological thesis is controversial, as is the claim that this is an ethic of reciprocity. The article as it stands has some valuable material that is poorly presented and some mistakes and soignificant gaps. Somewhat hesitant suggestion: rename it 'The golden rule', and allow it to be developed. Anarchia 06:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, appropriate subject per Anarchia but I think "The golden rule" is too ambiguous to be a good article title. John Vandenberg 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Obviously a notable subject. In addition, while I haven't gone through the entire history yet, even merely comparing the last 100 edits [1] leaves me wondering why so much information was "gutted" from the article. - jc37 12:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Other than some possible tidying up needed, I can see no good reason for this to be deleted. Pursey 12:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. AfD is not cleanup, and this ethical axiom surely deserves an article. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup. Many incomplete segments but the ones that are covered are well referenced, even if the references are not formatted as such. Saturn 5 15:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This concept is downright religious for many people, myself included. Deletion is simply not an option, and the reasons given for deletion are somewhat insubstantial, given what a quick cleanup (as suggested) would do. I will also have to say that renaming the page "The Golden Rule" is not appropriate, as EoR is much more tangible and much less colloquial. effsee
• Keep Except for a title that is sooooo "P.C." that nobody knows what the hell they're talking about, this is a pretty good article; of course, all articles are good in their own way, and my opinion is no more valuable than that of anybody else, so I apologize for whatever I just said that may have offended someone. Mandsford 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball keep - The article could use some work, but deletion is really out of the question. This is quite literally one of the most rudimentary topics in moral philosophy. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - I can't emphasize enough how absurd it is to nominate this article for deletion. This is a fundamental concept in all religions and cultures, and is absolutely notable! It is deplorable that one of Sefringle's reasons for deletion is because the Islam section is sourced.Bless sins 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If we can't even get concensus on what this ethic is, we can't have a list of nonsense OR wikipedia editors claim are instances of it. BS's statement that it is a fundamental concept in all religions is utterly false. Having some sort of "be nice to your brother" statement in Islam only applies to other Muslims, as Muslims are ordered to wage war on non-Muslims, and are allowed to enslave them, have sex with their prisoners, etc. If this article says anything to the opposite we're doing readers a disservice. Arrow740 05:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So even you want this article deleted simply because you don't seem to like Muslims.Bless sins 06:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think wikipedia should have an article stating that Islam is even compatible with the golden rule. I've removed all the OR again. Let's build the article from the ground up. Arrow740 07:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your POV, I don't know that it's valid. Can you cite sources to support it? - jc37 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Islam sub-section could use some more neutral commentary, but is that a reason to delete the whole article? It looks like it's already being neutralized, and it would take an editor with adequate background knowledge 5 minutes to finish the task. Is it worth rewriting a ~16 page article to fix a small subsection? — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Of corse it is. Especially since the rest of the article has no sources (other than that section), and is not verifiable. It makes no sense to keep garbage which isn't sourced.--Sefringle^Talk 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely you're not serious. I counted 62 offsite links, many of which were inline references. If you want to rewrite all ~16 pages so that it's perfect, great; otherwise, please respect the work of those who put countless hours into the article. It could use a modest bit of cleanup, but it does contain a good deal of comprehensive information on a subject with notability that is plainly obvious. Fix it; don't delete it for having a handful of easily correctable blemishes. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - As I noted in my initial comments, the page seemed to have been "gutted". Apparently due to User:Arrow740 personal opinions about it's applicablility to certain religions. For reference, I've pasted the July 15 2007 version here for reference. (Chosen as prior to the user's initial edit to the page.) - jc37 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree it needs a clean up: too many quotations, but fundamentally (!) it is anti-bias since it points out the astonishing (IMO) similarity between all major religions. To lose that insight would be divisive, and tragic. I agree that it is also central to ethics and moral philosophy. TonyClarke —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyClarke (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep whose lame idea was it to delete the golden rule? None of the reasons for deletion justify deleting any article. There should be a twelve step program for deletionists. Gregbard 00:02, 6 September 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.