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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 00:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Ludicrously POV despite many warnings to the main editor. It's not about science, just a chaotic jumble of ideas bringing together cloning, global warming, education, astrology, arranged marriages(!) and much more. The references are to a POV newspaper, an astrology website and other sources that don't seem to be satisfy WP's criteria of independence and reliability. This article is allegedly part of a student project but the main editor has declined all offers of help with this mess and is curiously reticent about the project. Specifically it fails WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:VER and possibly also WP:SOAPBOX and maybe WP:FRINGE. andy (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 18:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, The article is a Original research, and fails to use reliable sources, for ex: http://www.astromatrimony.com is being used as reference. --Nvineeth (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' looks like it is just a chaotic jumble. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. creator of article has been given ample opportunity to correct the direction he was taking, and lots of help, but this is result. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a good article could in principle be written on this topic, but the current content of this article would be hindrance rather than a help to anybody capable of making that effort. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - original research, but any relevant, actually well-sourced information should be merged into Hinduism if it doesn't exist there or in one of the "child pages" already. Jd027 (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is poorly written POV synthesis of dubious trivia culled from unreliable sources (all sources except the Pingree book are junk). Other articles created by the same group of editors (Islam and civil rights, Taoism and death) have similar problems. Personally, despite assuming good faith, I cannot believe this is written as part of an (unnamed) university project as is being claimed. As TimVickers says, an encyclopedic article on the topic may be feasible, but the current attempt is worse than having nothing, and the sourcable parts of the topic are already covered better in existing wikipedia articles, such as, Hindu views on evolution, articles on the Vedangas etc. The authors have refused repeated offers to help them get started in userpage, and have undone redirects; so deletion is the only remaining option. Abecedare (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - May I say this is just a chaotic jumble? --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this editor has voted twice here.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is a discussion, not a vote Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. School project that didn't wind up creating anything more than a content-forky POVish essay. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No WP:OR--Caspian blue 22:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another terrible school-project article, complete with surly teacher (on the talk page). We really need some policy to deal with school projects, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — The article comprises almost entirely of original research and biased statements. The subject could potentially be re-visited at a later date and be remade into a cohesive article, but we need to delete this version as this is not what we want readers to see. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete. I believe we've achieved consensus here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE - please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taoism and death andy (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body. I really don't like doing this, honest, but I'm meeting implacable resistance to my attempts to tidy up this mess. andy (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rescue I don't see the POV problem here, either. There is no position being advanced in this article. Can anyone explain exactly what POV is being advanced here?There are a number of subsections being introduced that bring topics relating to Hinduism and Science together under one banner. As for "tidying up a mess," I would applaud ou if those were your efforts. Deleting is not tidying. As Wikipedia policy states, "Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement." So, why not move to actually improve this article rather than simply trying to delete it almost immediately after its creation? And why call me surly for trying to do so?Vote Cthulhu (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question If you truly think the articles in question (this and the others nominated) can be fixed, why do you refuse the option of userfication? This could still be done! I don't care if your class is over. These are very likely to be deleted in their current states. If we put them in your userspace, you could work on them to your heart's content. Aleta ^Sing 13:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer These are not my articles, so there is no sense in userfying them to me. I think that they can be fixed rather than deleted, but that doesn't mean that I am going to fix them all by myself.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There maybe could be an article written on this topic, but this article ain't it, nor is even redeemably so (in my opinion) except by starting from scratch. Tweakign a bit here and there can't fix the overall "this article is an unfocused collection of writings on various topics that involve hinduism and/or science" but don't specifically address and make a case for notability of the topic as given. It's up to those who think it's redeemable and want to see it redeemed to redeem it, given consensus among others that it can't (and burned bridges to them!). That's how collaborative writing works.. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above but Vote Cthulhu.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked up information on the wikipedia article on the religion. It reads "Hindu beliefs vary widely". They don't have a single leader, or any universal doctrine about the scientific issues mentioned. The opinions of one leader in their widely varied religion, does not reflect the rest. Unless they have a conference where all their officially recognized leaders came together, and voted on something, or at least the leaders of a significant number of people, then you can't write an article saying what they believe in. Dream Focus 20:30, 24 March 2009 (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.