Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kalachakra

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Kalachakra

I have refactored some of the long comments from this page to the talk page. This is not an assertion that the comments are less valuable than the others here, merely that the discussion was too long and hard to scroll through. Stifle 02:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that Stifle, and I've moved the rest for the sake of consistency. The discussion page is the best place for that. Jonas Silk 18:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am ignorant of the dispute from which this article arose. That said, it's a fork. Melchoir 00:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as pov fork of Kalachakra, or smerge the differences. Metta Bubble 00:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Green Giant 02:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pork --Grocer 06:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork; I fail to see why the article must "be preserved pending an inquiry for Crimes against Humanity concerning the banning of the Jonangpas in the 17th century, under the auspices of the ICC in The Hague, and with the help of Amnesty International and the UN human rights". Surely the history of Kalachakra would suffice if this were the case. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. --Terence Ong 08:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Good find, Melchoir. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as POV fork --TBC??? ??? ??? 12:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fork. Staxringold 12:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Alpha269 15:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Shoulda just used {{prod}} on this one. Cyde Weys 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • True. Melchoir 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sylvain1972 15:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV forking is not an acceptable means to deal with content disputes. Stifle 02:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The point being made,- and that can be developped on the page, - is that the content is NPOV. And it provides links to other articles that also outline that NPOV.Geir Smith 09:23, 12 March 2006 (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.