- Gandhi's views on race (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
{{{Appears notable}}} It was improved substantially since the proposed deletion and quoted 30 different accurate references. It was completely balanced with the counter point of view. Teabing-Leigh 05:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Furthermore, after improvement more people wanted it kept or merged than deleted.
- Comment: I agree the issue is notable, however I think that the first concern was that any "balance" was serving as a fig leaf for a tendentious scolding of Gandhi. The second concern was that there was a lot of primary research that was chosen selectively in the article as written. (I'm not convinced that was cause for deletion, so much as an artifact of the editor's referencing.) As for my opinion, I think that NPOV should no more be used to help prop up a selectively glowing view of a historical figure than to allow personal attacks masquerading as neutral history. While the article as submitted was problematic, I think Wikipedia should in future remain open to a balanced presentation of the issue both on the main Mahatma Gandhi page & on a subpage should there be sufficient length to require one. Ventifax 06:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree entirely with Ventifax's assessment. The article as originally nominated for deletion was very much problematic. But the topic itself was notable, and the article was actively being improved throughout the deletion debate process. The version at the time it was deleted was certainly still very much a work in progress. But if one compares it to the originally nominated version, I think it's pretty clear that it was moving in the right direction. Perhaps the deletion decision doesn't need to be overturned immediately, given that even the deleted version was still not yet completely free of the concerns voiced in the deletion debate. But certainly, once it's finished being rounded into better shape, there is no reason the topic shouldn't be open to re-introduction, whether as its own article or as a subsection of the main Gandhi article. (I don't have a strong preference between those two options, but the Gandhi article is fairly long as it stands, so that might argue for a new article.) Mwelch 07:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - to be honest, it's hard to see how any article on this topic is going to be much more than a POV fork. Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic, but I really think these "X views of Y" articles are not altogether desirable. No prejudice against a recreation that really complies with NPOV, though. Valid AfD, and it should be considered that perhaps this material is redundant to that contained elsewhere. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, agreeing with Ventifax's assessment above. There is probably enough for a short factual paragraph in the Gandhi article, but most of this is, if not revisionism, then at the least looking at a historical figure through 21st Century eyes. Undue weight applies. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am willing to reintroduce the subject matter after editing by Mwelch, Ventifax, Moreschi and Guy (if he at all agrees that there should be an article on this issue). To Guy... the issue here is two fold: 1. Many of Gandhi's contemporaries did not share these views. 2. Gandhi's role as an inspiration of many civil rights and anti-racial movements around the world, which had been duly emphasised and pointed out in the deleted article, makes this issue very notable... Teabing-Leigh 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- May I suggest, that if you are interested in reintroducing the subject, that you first try some of the other suggestions - such as by creating the content as a smaller section in the main article about Gandhi? It may be a bit less contentious that way, as then if there are problems they can be brought up through regular editorial discussion rather than having it dragged through deletion processes. Barring that, if you truly feel there is enough material on the subject to warrant a standalone article, then instead of jumping back in to the fray and creating the article over again, try creating a test version in user space, perhaps under User:Teabing-Leigh/Gandhi's views on race or something similar to that. Then you can seek comment and review on the proposed version and once you have something that is more generally agreeable to the community it can be moved into namespace. Being too hasty to recreate a deleted article can be viewed as a lack of respect toward the other editors and an unwillingness to abide by consensus. As for the AfD debate in question, I have to endorse the deletion as being in proper process. Arkyan • (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Nothing wrong I saw with the process, and what I saw of the "article" appeared to be quote-mining in service of a POV, anyways. --Calton | Talk 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. This is, in fact, the absolute most POV article I have ever seen here. Teabing draws conclusions like "Gandhi thought black people were incapable of humanity" (which he actually put IN THE ARTICLE, by the way) even though Gandhi never said anything of the sort. To add to that, after I helped the article get deleted, Teabing attacked me on my talk page. Belgium EO 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - Its sourced to some Black nationalist propaganda rather than bona-fide studies of Gandhi.Bakaman 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
|
