Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karmapa controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedy keep, due to the nominator being a sockpuppet of the banned user DavidYork71. Khoikhoi 05:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karmapa controversy

Karmapa controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Duplication. WP:POVFORK from 17th Karmapa recognitions Sacerdote (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

*Delete-It is a duplicate. Almost exact copy. It ought to be deleted at once. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    • I'm baffled. Can you explain the reasoning behind your vote to delete an article which has been on Wikipedia since 2004, edited by numerous editors, due to the existence of a fork which was created this morning?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep. The idea is bizarre. The article 17th Karmapa recognitions has recently been created by copying [Karmapa controversy]. Replace 17th Karmapa recognitions by a redirect to primary article. It just looks like someone made a mistake and did not know how to redirect. Billlion (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like someone created the new page 17th Karmapa recognitions by manually copying the original page without the page history, then carried on editing it. We could have a debate about the name. But the talk page is the place. It looks like someone just made a mistake. Without a consensus on the rename and the help of an admin to move the history the only thing possible at the moment seems to be a redirect of the new page back to the old page, which I have done.Billlion (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment The article histories certainly seem to support Billion's account. I've fixed a typo that broke the redirect. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 16:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • strong keep. If the proposal was to move this article to a new name, that should be proposed and discussed on the Talk:Karmapa controversy page not by a fork and proposing deletion of the original article. Let's snowball this if there's no further disagreement.- Owlmonkey (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm with the keeper's. The many bizarre changes that User:Sacerdote has been making to a lot of the pages associated with Karmapa's have all been without discussion (or discussion after the fact) and seem to mostly reflect his opinions on how things should be presented.--Changchub (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment-Well, it appears that I am wrong. My apologies if I have made a mistake in this AfD. I retract my statement. No harm done? --Zacharycrimsonwolf 07:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! no harm done. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggest rename to 17th Karmapa recognitions as that is a more indicative title of the what the article actually describes (discoveries and confirmations, not doubts about or disparagements of the same).Sacerdote (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's continue that on the talk page as you've started and close this AfD. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and close this nomination... no case to answer. Andrewa (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know this duplicates, since this isn't a minor issue in Kagyu, but a very, very big controversy. It would be like having two Popes in Catholicism or siamese twins being Rabbis. 17th Karmapa recognitions is extremely verbose. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, and keep the current title which is, I believe, the best possible. "Karmapa controversy", in two words, correctly prepares the reader for the article that will follow. The present title is clear, informative, NPOV, memorable, and concise. This is, at its heart, a controversy, or else we could have a single title holder and a footnote for the other fellow. technopilgrim (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2008 (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.