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.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Hinduism[edit]

This article was PROD-tagged by a new user (<50 edits). It is a substantial article that a number of editors have clearly been working on. An article of this calibre cannot be arbitrarily deleted, and therefore I am putting it up for a vote. ImpuMozhi 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. per nomination. In case anyone feels that there are problems, they can be raised on the talk-page and ironed out. ImpuMozhi 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, I think I'd suggest Keep on the article. Just, at least find citations for what's on there and rewrite to comply to NPOV. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Re-write ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if we can have Category:Criticism of Religion, which includes criticisms of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, we can have this. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'd say this should be a speedy keep, given no reason for the nomination has been given. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prodder seemed to explain his/her action on the article's talk page as "The article seems to do a lot of answering criticism. The article content does not match the title. If we were to change the title to "Reponding to Hindu Critics", that would not be an appropriate encylopedia article. This is why I have nominated the article for deletion." Kuru ^talk 03:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, AFD is not the place for content disputes. The article may not some pov problems, but if they can hash it out in Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam, I think you can do it here. Kuru ^talk 03:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep It is a start of a decent sub-article of Hinduism. It probably needs work, as it seems rather superficial, but I'm not an expert in Hinduism. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - still needs expansion by somebody. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reason given for prod deletion is a good rationale for the NPOV tag, not removal of the whole article. Ziggurat 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If I remember correctly, this article was created because the mother article Hinduism became too long and the editors thought this article required its own space. As a subject, definitely notable -- Lost 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has POV issues, but overall notable and a definite Keep. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per above. Alphachimp ^talk 07:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Worthy subject, just needs to be made NPOV. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, because all the other major religions now have Criticism articles, so Hinduism should also. It needs cites but is generally well-written. - Merzbow 07:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if any of the criticism here is notable then make the Hinduism article NPOV. Criticism articles are a terrible idea. I don't care if the other major religions have them... they shouldn't. The Hinduism article is not too long either. Put each bit of criticism in context with the aspect of the religion under discussion.... in other words: take the notable criticisms and write them into the article... don't start a criticism section and just dump it in. Seperate criticism articles and sections within articles are just lazy article writing and magnets for crap and whinging (with the exception of subjects that make a name for themselves by/through criticism). - Motor (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. NPOV it up. utcursch | talk 13:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.