Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-denial
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The result of the debate was speedy keep as a withdrawn nomination. bainer (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Self-denial
The content of this page is entirely arbitrary. It doesn't really have a reason to exist per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Everything described on it is covered in greater detail and accuracy on other pages. IMO it should be deleted and made into a disambiguation page that links to specific topics, similar to the self-interest page (which, apparently it was created in response to.) rehpotsirhc 01:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Important and encyclopedic concept, especially in religion. Needs expansion, not deletion. Look to asceticism for an example of how an article like this could be developed. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep encyclapedic , not sure I spelled that right though San Saba 02:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep encyclopedic article. Sheehan (Talk) 02:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I will point out here that asceticism is a specific and well-defined concept with clear boundaries--it only means one thing. Self-denial can mean many different things. This is why it needs a disambiguation page and not a separate article with content that can only redundantly reproduce the content of some articles, and possibly exclude the content of others that might be related. We should note that Encarta and Britannica do not have separate articles on this subject, but rather use their equivalent of disambiguation to redirect to less nebulous topics. rehpotsirhc 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Making the article into a disambiguation page doesn't require deletion. You just change the text and slap a {{disambig}} on it. I'm not convinced that it should be a disambiguation page, though; "self-denial" seems to have a prima facie obvious meaning (denial of one's own interests), and what pages would it disambiguate? Regardless, if what you want to do is make it a disambiguation page, there's no need to take it through AfD. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I will point out here that asceticism is a specific and well-defined concept with clear boundaries--it only means one thing. Self-denial can mean many different things. This is why it needs a disambiguation page and not a separate article with content that can only redundantly reproduce the content of some articles, and possibly exclude the content of others that might be related. We should note that Encarta and Britannica do not have separate articles on this subject, but rather use their equivalent of disambiguation to redirect to less nebulous topics. rehpotsirhc 02:25, 15 April 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.
