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 No Consensus, defaults to keep. Naconkantari 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Originally prod tagged by Anthony.bradbury with the concern: Evangelical text; not encyclopedic. Prod2a added by me: Additionally the author is not in a position to decide what edits may or may not be made; this in itself is an attempt to maintain the POV of the page. Author then attempted to dispute the prod both on the article's talk page and on User_talk:Anthony.bradbury's but did not remove the prod tag. Following discussion on the article's talk page author proceeded to accuse Anthony.bradbury of bias against Sikhism, and continued by refactoring discussions on both my and AB's talk pages. Author has now removed prrod tag, so I am taking this article to AfD to give the opportunity for wider debate, and am nominating it for deletion on the grounds that as it stands it is a POV article, probably OR, and WP:NOT a soapbox. Tonywalton  | Talk 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Following the posting of the 2 tags, the author, Hari Singh posted a message on both the talk pages of Users - Anthony.bradbury and Tonywalton highlighting other articles where quotations from their holy text appear.
  1). Anthony.bradbury marked the article for deletion because of: " Evangelical text; not encyclopaedic" If we look at Parable of the Wedding Feast it contains various holy quotes and says: "Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready." If this text can be allowed with many 1000's of other quotes, then why ban text from the Sikh Holy Book?
  2). Both these users have failed to directly address this matter when raised on their Talk pages. Why? No reply has been given to the key question – If quotes from the holy Bible can be allowed, then why can't one quote from the SGGS, which is the Sikh Holy Book?
  3). Tonywalton said: "...this in itself is an attempt to maintain the POV of the page" He has failed to see that this article SGGS on Meat does not contain any POV by the author but lists various quotes from the Holy Book of the Sikhs called the SGGS for short on this subject. These quotation are not POVs – They are facts on which a Sikh has to base his or her life! They are matters of serious importance to anyone interested in Sikhism and reading this article. As the fifth largest organised religion, the text in this article is notable and important to the 23million Sikhs in the world. Further, the article clearly say: This page is strictly for the purposes of recording the message of the Sikh holy scripture and Sikh Guru, Guru Granth Sahib regarding the matter of Meat and its consumption. Please only add text from SGGS or Varan Bhai Gurdas on this page - All personal and other views should be stated on the page: Sikh Diet This statement is not banning anyone but issuing guidance so that the Holy Quotes and the Interpretations can be maintained in an orderly and organised fashion.
  4). There are 5 rules governing article that have to be deleted: Not encyclopedic quality, not verifiable, original research, not NPOV and copyright material. This article avoid all five of these factors and hence should be allowed to be kept.
  5). Some users have shown a clear bias towards similar articles on Christianity. Look at these similar articles here: Parables In both these cases we have verbatim quotes from holy text based on a central theme. Why keep one (ie Christianity) and delete the other (ie: Sikhism) - This shows clear bias and is against Wikipedia policy and the law of the land (UK) --Hari Singh

• Comment - HariSingh, I have to say that I do agree with *some* of the concerns raised by Anthony.bradbury and Tonywalton. However, I do not agree that the use of quotations is inappropriate. Although this might border on original research, I'm of the opinion that extracting quotes from the Sikh holy book showing differing points of view is akin to referring to other third-party sources. In this sense, it's not original research.
• However, the article in its current form has serious neutrality issues. It starts by saying what can and cannot appear on the page (which is not appropriate on Wikipedia). Statements like "here is no reason to rely on advice by any other third party." are not appropriate. The tone of the article seems more akin to a "guideline for Sikhs" as opposed to presenting the differing views on meat eating present amongst Sikhs. The views of scriptural sources are the most important for Sikhs, but they are not the only views or opinions.
• The topic discussed is important, so my opinion is NPOV and merge with Sikh Diet. Sikh Diet might be best moved to Sikh dietary restrictions. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment You say: "…. the article in its current form has serious neutrality issues."
    The article is primarily quotations from the SGGS – As a Sikh, are you saying that the SGGS is not neutral? The quotes are verbatim text from the holy scripture just like make hundreds of quotes in any encyclopaedia. I fail to see how this poses an issue with neutrality??
    You also said "It starts by saying what can and cannot appear on the page (which is not appropriate on Wikipedia)."
    1). This article is entitled – SGGS on Meat which means that the article is informing the readers about the exact message of the holy Sikh Scriptures (the Sri Guru Granth Sahib or SGGS) to the world in connection with meat. This title in itself restricts what can be put in this article – I believe that this means that only text from the SGGS can be put here.
    2). Many articles on Wikipedia are restricted in various ways– The main page is restricted (full protected), various articles are restricted eg Gibraltar (semi-protected), etc for various reasons. The fact that the statement "Please only add text from SGGS or Varan Bhai Gurdas on this page" does not mean that a user cannot add other important text to the page – The statement is there to focus the attention of the Users to the preferred segmentation of the subject matter – It is not a complete block – Is it? It would be preferred if all the holy text was to appears on the page: SGGS on Meat and subjective matter to appears at Sikh Diet. This is just a logical arrangement which makes the patrolling of the articles easier.
    Finally, you say "Statements like 'here is no reason to rely on advice by any other third party.' are not appropriate." Surely that's no reason to delete an article which is what we are deciding here! – That sentence can be changed if you feel that other people can give better advice to a Sikh than their Guru!! --Hari Singh 01:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Sorry about the late reply. I'm not active on Wikipedia at the moment. Yes, as a Sikh, I'm saying the SGGS in not neutral (it teaches against many things and advocates other things, hence it's not neutral). But that was not what I was referring to. I was talking about the way the article was worded, not the quotes. Your other points:
      • 1.That's fair enough. But you shouldn't put that in the article. An article should not contain disclaimers of what should or should not be on a page.
      • 2.See above. This is not similar to protecting pages. Protecting pages is done to combat vandalism.
      • Wikipedia is *not* a site to give advice to Sikhs on how to live their life based on their religious teachings. It's designed to *document* Sikh religious teachings, alternative interpretations and critiscm of the religion. Either way, I feel that this should be merged with Sikh Diet, where a full look at the issues with meat eating are discussed. Thoughts by prominent scholars on SIkhism must be looked at just as you look at quotes from the SGGS. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment You say: I do not agree that the use of quotations is inappropriate. Although this might border on original research, I'm of the opinion that extracting quotes from the Sikh holy book showing differing points of view is akin to referring to other third-party sources. In this sense, it's not original research. and I quite agree. I would point out that I made the author aware of this on the article's talk page where I said : If you would like to reword the article, removing attempts at advocacy of your point of view and reporting on what the Guru said the article may survive; note that as well as neutrality verifiability is an absolute criterion for an article to be incuded. with no attempt by the author to do so. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This article is like many other such articles on religion which use quotations from their holy texts: Just a few examples of article on Christianity that use quotations from their holy texts are:
  • Parable of the Leaven four quotation from the holy text
  • Parable of the Weeds 3 quotes
  • Parable of the Pearl 2 quotes
  • Parable of the Hidden Treasure
  • Parable of Drawing in the Net
  • The Fall of Man one long quote plus small ones?
  • Parable of the Faithful Servant 1 quote
• So, if you think quoting from holy text is wrong then all the above articles are also wrong and should be deleted as well! I suggest you read the Talk page on the Article to see the original reasons given for the deletion of this article. It makes comical reading. --Hari Singh 20:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • For all the Parables and SGGS on Meat article - The point of all these quotations is to inform the reader of what the Holy texts have to say – that I hope you will agree is an important point; an important issue and a mechanism that needs to be preserved. The job of Encyclopaedias is to correctly inform its readers!! Without quotations you get to a situation when wrong messages of what is in the holy text can be conveyed as is happening with some aspects of Islam. So it is very important that we are allowed to quote these text verbatim so that the message is not tampered with - Discussion can be NPOV or POV, etc and these can be added to these articles if required. The quotations in themselves do not have a POV or NPOV – They are of a factual nature. The quote from the holy Bible is a FACT which has existed for 2000 years. Whether you believe it or not is another matter – Many billions believe in these facts. The writings of the Bible, Koran, SGGS, etc are all FACTS – They are NOT NPOV or POV. If I write that the SGGS says "There is one God" – That is a factual statement. If you go and look in the SGGS, then you will find that statement there. Whether you want to believe the statement or not – is another matter. Verbatim quotations are facts not subject to the POV or NPOV criterion. When we start making our own comments and have discussions on these texts, it becomes POV or NPOV. I urge all participants here to vote and argue to keep the SGGS on Meat and all Parables article as well as they convey important historic messages. --Hari Singh 23:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I will make no further comment except to say that I would like to see views of contributors other than the author, Tony Walton or myself.--Anthony.bradbury 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Good Keep article has merit and as a Khalsa Sikh agree with most of the points (conforms to orthodox teaching not sect based) but needs clean-up and more depth, more quotes (maybe 2 to 3 fold increase) from Guru Granth Sahib--Sikh 1 04:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, it needs peer review and other Sikh editors' quotes from Guru Granth Sahib to make it more scholarly--Sikh 1 05:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: User changed vote to merge to Sikh diet below. -Elmer Clark 20:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment: It doesn't matter if it "corresponds with orthodox teachings," no sermon-type material such as this is allowed here. This is a blatant example of WP:OR - someone wrote their personal interpretation of Sikh teachings with quotes that support it. It of course also violates WP:NPOV about as much as is possible - it blows my mind that there is even any debate here! People, this an encyclopedia, not a forum for the dissemination of religious interpretations. Good grief. -Elmer Clark 05:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • I hope you have looked at the various Parables and 1000's of pages using the Quotation template – All these articles use quotations and are referring to some POV. So do all these articles need to be deleted? WP:OR – These quotes have existed for 2000 years in the holy Bible – It no original research. My Friend, What are you trying to say? --Hari Singh 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I justed entered into discussion on one of those parables up for its own AfD. I suggested deletion on the grounds that there is nothing in the article other than quotes from a holy text. In the name of consistency, I'm making the same suggestion here. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: I don't think the situations are analogous. The Bible articles deal with specific passages, this, as far as I can tell, is just all the passages relating to a central theme that the author was able to find. -Elmer Clark 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Keep Disencouraging Sikhs from reading their holy text would be the same as deterring Christians from the Holy Bible.--Pssoor 22:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Pssoor (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • That argument has no relevance to the discussion at hand. We're discussing the existence of an encyclopaedia article here. Uncle G 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An encyclopedia should contain information of all different religions and the different aspects of the religions. Why should the teachings of the Sikh holy book not be contained, an encyclopedia should not be biased or false. All quotations from different holy texts should be regarded as divine, and should be handled with complete respect. A man can not be called peaceful, if he disregards other religions. Where is the justice of deleting an article which contains holy text? There is no text which offends anyone. It is true and only true.
  When one's religion is questioned, it is their duty to defend it, therefore it was necessary for me to make an account in Wikipedia, although I have browsed through it many times before, for a long period.--Pssoor 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose this article should not be deleted as it is important to sikhs to learn about what their holy text tells them. It is important to convey this message to sikhs.--Kaur62 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Kaur62 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

• • Wikipedia is not a soapbox for proselytizing any religion, or any one person's interpretation of that religion. Our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is non-negotiable. Uncle G 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment If you real mean what you say that "Wikipedia is not for proselytizing any religion - then goto Parables and make the same comment and ask for the thousands of articles to be deleted!! MxM Peace 21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as far as I can tell (the page is pretty difficult to understand), it's essentially a sermon with quotations tacked on - quotations can go to Wikiquote; sermons are best left out of the project altogether. Ridiculously POV page whose subject matter is already covered at Sikh Diet. -Elmer Clark 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment The page lists quotations from the Sikh Holy Book called the Sri Guru Granth Sahib or SGGS for short. This page is very similar to the Parables pages which are also being discussed as candidates for deletion.
    1). It surprises me that at the parables site you voted: [Strong keep- Quality of articles should not dictate whether they are kept. Subjects are clearly notable. -Elmer Clark 00:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)] but here you have voted to delete? I would love to know why?[reply]
    2). You say this is " Ridiculously POV" – The page consists of quotation from the Sikh holy book – How does is differ from the quotations from the holy Bible? If this is " Ridiculously POV" than isn't the parables also the same?
    3). You say "subject matter is already covered at Sikh Diet" – where in the Sikh Diet article does it narrate the sayings of the Guru which form the basis of the Sikh Diet article? Where in the Sikh Diet page do find what the Guru has said about eating meat? Hari Singh

• Comment This is not similar to the parable pages at all. Read my longer comment down below, I addressed that. It was the intro that I felt was POV, not the quotes. It pretty much says "Sikhs are to base their decisions on diet on these quotes." I'm sure not all Sikhs agree, just as not every Jew stays kosher. And if the Sikh diet article doesn't have a section on what the SGGS says about diet, add it! It belongs there, not in its own article, and not in this form. -Elmer Clark 20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Many thanks for your latest comments on the SGGS deletion page. I am beginning to see why you have made some of the comments that you did.
  The main definition of a Sikh is someone who believes in the SGGS. So if you do not believe in these quotes, then I believe that you cannot be a Sikh. See Sikhiwiki (please note I have links with this site) also see Sikh.
  So this brings me to the other reason why I have kept these quotes separate from the discussion page. It highlights the importance given to the issue under discussion (ie: eating meat) and the sacred text, which for a Sikh is like a living Guru - see article on SGGS to see the reverence given to the Guru Granth Sahib. I appreciate your time and effort in making your stand. This conveys to me your objectivity and at least a commitment to impartiality – which is refreshing and a scarce commodity these days. Many thanks again, --Hari Singh 00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, specifically the NPOV concerns. We have an article already on the Sikh Diet, as noted above. My greatest concern about the article is that it is constructed to only advocate certain positions. Quoting the article: "This page is strictly for the purposes of recording the message of the Sikh holy scripture." I think an appropriate solution is to summarize the salient points of these quotes at the Sikh diet page and to present them there within the context of an encyclopedic article discussing all verifiable aspects of the issue. If the quotes are necessary verbatim, Wikiquote can handle that. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Care should be taken to close this AfD similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wise and the Foolish Builders to avoid Christian bias. If I'm to express a preference, it would be merge to Sikh Diet. A quick review of linked pages would suggest that the phrase "SGGS" should be replaced with "Guru Granth Sahib", to which SGGS redirects. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • The relationship between the AfDs is spurious. The New Testament one relates to individual parables and whether they merit thier own article. If the parables survive would would want NPOV verifiable factual, academically referenced, articles to be written on them - not 'here's what Christians should believe/should understant them'. Our articles on Christian topics must not be written from a Christain POV, nor are they excluisively for Christians. I'm not going to vote on this one, as I don't know enough about the subject - but it isn't an article on one passage, but a pastiche of passages that (in the author's opinion) relate to a topic of teaching. This clearly raises different issues for consideration. --Doc 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • That characterisation is not accurate. If you look at the parables articles closely, you'll find that they, too, often draw material from several of the gospels, including non-canonical ones. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Yes, they draw attention to the fact that some of the parables are found in more than one gospel - and parralels can be found in simmilar passages elsewhere (but 'm not defending the content - it needs cleaned up). That's clearly different to arranging a number of passages round a topic as religious instruction. (But again, I'm not arguing for the deletion of this, I'm just saying it is different). But if this were an NPOV article on a passage of Sikh scripture, I'd vote Strong Keep. --Doc 09:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Comment You say: "….specifically the NPOV concerns"
          1.) The article is about what the Sikh Holy Book says about Meat. The article only contains quotations from the holy text. How does this affect the NPOV? No point of view has been expressed by the writer. The article does not say "eat meat" or "don't eat" – This is discussed on the page at Sikh Diet which uses these quotations to highlight both POV. Please tell me how this poses a NPOV concern?
          2). You say: "We have an article already on the Sikh Diet" - As I have said before, the article at Sikh Diet does not have all the relevant quotes to allow the user to make up their mind one way or the other. Please show me where the two articles overlap?
          3). You say: "If the quotes are necessary verbatim, Wikiquote can handle that" Then I ask that all other quotes on Wikipedia are also removed so that no bias is evident in this policy. Check these sites: Parables and 1000's of pages
          4). You say: "I think an appropriate solution is to summarize the salient points of these quotes at the Sikh diet page" By summarising, you will be accused of bias and this page will be subject to constant change one way or the other depending on what suits the particular user! – Who will patrol these changes and decide where to draw the line? --Hari Singh

• Speedy delete, not an encyclopedia article in the current form. If you want to write an article about the text, then do so, but extensive quotes from the text are not encyclopedic. Neither are your interpretations. That would be Original Research. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't see what criterion tells me that personal interpretations lead to Speedy deletion. If it is pure personal opinion or original research then it would be deleted normally.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I see you have selected this article and chosen to leave out the parables? Why is that, I wonder? --Hari Singh 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In this state I can't see this surviving. Is it an excerpt from Sikh scriptures? Is it a speech by a Sikh cleric? There is useful stuff that can be moulded for good use here I think. Need more time to look at it. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are quotations from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh Holy Book. The format of the text cannot be changed for obvious reasons. Compare it with Parables --Hari Singh 04:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP THE ARTICLE--MY REASONS ARE

Hari I think you are getting off the mark---its not needed --anger will not convince anyone to follow you only by example are leaders of real repute born.

As for the editor--For Gods sake have some sense of fair play.YOU CANT DELETE THE ARTICLE ONLY IMPROVE IT>by shedding more light on it.

If you treat articles on Christianity different from any another Religion you are breaching a very important Law of this country. Do you really want it printed in the national papers? So take heed and try to understand the situation.

Obviously there are some scholars who have misinterpreted the SGGS and to their own conviction have hijacked the True Meaning.

The next logical question is who has the rightful last word on SGGS in Sikhism??

Sikhism is founded on very democratic principles. In that there is no co-ertion to any viewpoint and an individual is allowed to arrive at his or her own conclusion and develope at his own pace.

This is so correct as I often find that as a person progresses spiritually, greater insight is brougt upon the subject matter and therefore the meaning of the texts just gets deeper and deeper.

Therefore it is a folly to argue as to who is right or wrong but the correct thing to do is to experience the the spirituality within the the SGGS and learn therefrom by actually living a righteous life and meditation only such persons acquire the wisdom contained within SGGS.

There have been many Saints of high repute who have arrived at the same conclusion as Hari singh but have not uttered a word as to eat or not to eat meat--by their very presence you know instinctively that it is wrong to kill for meat. And I have met such Saints.

This debate will live on as will the many shades of people ranging from pure spirit to pure matter.That is not a proplem either in Sikhism as we evolve spiritually too.

So all is in Harmony--dont worry yourselves foolishly--God is in charge.

JUST RELATE THE TEXTS AS THEY ARE WRITTEN AND LETS EACH INDIVIDUAL ARRIVE AT HIS OWN CONCLUSION. --Ksingh20 05:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment [copied from User:Harisingh's talk page]: (This is clearly incorrect - The user had also posted this message to the SGGS on Meat Talk page and not as suggested here by Elmer Clark ( message in brackets posted by --Hari Singh 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)) First of all I wanna address the claims you're making that there is bias against this article because it deals with Sikhism rather than Christianity. I don't believe that to be the case. What this page is, essentially, is a collection of quotes about a central theme - the theme of the eating of meat in Sikhism. Under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, one of the items on the list is "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Other than the relatively brief introduction (which I also have issues with), that describes this article - a list of loosely associated quotations. They should be moved to Wikiquote. There is no Christianity-related article like this. I challenge you to find me one Christianity-related page that is a collection of quotes. The Parables of Jesus, which you've claimed are more or less Christian equivalents of this article, are much different articles. Each article is about one specific quotation from the Bible - and all of those quotations are famous in and of themselves. I admit I am not familiar with the Sikh Shabads, but as far I know they aren't considered particularly famous parts of the Guru Granth Sahib - and even if they are, they would need their own articles, each of which discusses the Shabad itself. You will not see an article such as Bible on the Afterlife that just explains the Bible's position on the Afterlife and provides a bunch of quotes supporting it. You do see articles like Heaven, which explain (more esoterically) a Christian (not exclusively in this case, but you see my point) belief. This is analogous to the page Sikh diet: no one has a problem with that, because instead of being more or less a collection of quotes, it's a general treatment of the subject. It's fine to quote a holy book a few times in context about a subject like that, of course, but when the article is pretty much just a collection of quotes, it belongs at Wikiquote. Also, to the above commentor: You seem to have a very flawed perception of what Wikipedia is. "Obviously there are some scholars who have misinterpreted the SGGS and to their own conviction have hijacked the True Meaning. The next logical question is who has the rightful last word on SGGS in Sikhism??" Perhaps that is "obvious" to followers of mainstream Sikhism, but obviously not to the followers of those scholars. The question of "who who has the rightful last word on SGGS in Sikhism" is not something that should be answered here. See WP:ABOUT, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT for more information about what should and shouldn't be put here. Also, a note to the closing admin: every single person who has voted to keep this has been either a single-purpose account or someone whose contributions are almost all on the subject of Sikhism. Among members without obvious connections to Sikhism, there has been unanimous agreement on "Delete." -Elmer Clark 06:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment you say that:
    1). there is no bias as: "Each article [parable] is about one specific quotation from the Bible - and all of those quotations are famous in and of themselves" Well in The Strong Man Bound we have listed 5 different quotes NOT one as you say. Further, all the Shabads listed in this article are also very famous quotes from the Sikh Holy Book which are recited frequently by preachers.
    2). You say " I challenge you to find me one Christianity-related page that is a collection of quotes" The one above has 5 quotes, Parable of the Leaven has 4; The Birds of Heaven has 4 some long; The Rich Fool has 4; The Little Children has 4; etc – Have I won the challenge?
    3). You said: "… a list of loosely associated quotations. They should be moved to Wikiquote." These are all list of quotes so shouldn't they be moved as well?
    4). You say: "I admit I am not familiar with the Sikh Shabads, but as far I know they aren't considered particularly famous parts of the Guru Granth Sahib - and even if they are, they would need their own articles, each of which discusses the Shabad itself" They are part of the SGGS! The term "Sikh Shabads" refers to hymns from the SGGS and this article lists a few of them. Then on the Sikh Diet article the relevance or not of these Shabads (hymns) can be discussed. So the SGGS on Meat has a list of hymns from SGGS, the Sikh holy book and the article Sikh Diet discuss the consequences and meaning of these hymns.
    So please could someone explain - What really is the difference between the parables and this article? As far as I can work out, both these articles list several verbatim quotes from their respective holy texts! I see more similarity than difference in their basic conceptual design. --Hari Singh 04:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the case. Why would it matter anyway? If you look at a lot of religious articles, people recommend keep for anything related to their religion, while non-religionists will not, but I don't recall any of those being ignored - I can think of many partisan "voting" on AfDs.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It was the case at the time. I did not say to ignore their input, I just thought that knowing that might have some input on their perception of whether keeping this is really the concensus of the community in general. But, like I said, it's a moot point now. -Elmer Clark 08:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional KeepThe page is definetly unacademic and the "we" and "our" stuff needs to go, but subject is valid for wiki article. Roy Brumback 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We already have an academic (well, getting there) page on the subject; see Sikh diet. -Elmer Clark 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Content is useful and needs to be improved and kept in some form - The heading is definitely unenycyclopedic and needs to be brought into line with something like Vegetarianism in Buddhism. What is referred to in "our" and "we" - which Sikh clerics said this? Which Sikh organisations said this? If there is are differing views among different schools of Sikh thought, then we need to put the different ideologies there with links to speeches from clerics who interpret the text differently. Put some info on what how different verses from the text are interpreted to mean different things. At the moment I feel that there are too many quotes- we need an explanation of what the quotes mean or what clerics think they imply for correct moral dietary lifestyle. Sikh diet and Vegetarianism in Buddhism seem to leave a lot to be desired at this stage as well. Blnguyen | rant-line 08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've had a think about it. It's a good article because it conforms to orthodox Sikh teaching (over 400 years). If you are a Khalsa Sikh, meat is Strictly forbidden you have to live by the laws in the Guru Granth Sahib but a non Khalsa Sikh does have more flexibilty because they have not taken Amrit (to become Khalsa) so they could take a more of a pick and choose approach. Its only when you take Amrit to become Khalsa, you formally accept (in the Amrit Ceremony) all the laws in the Guru Granth Sahib. It's a good article but.... If we allow this article then will have to allow a lot of other bad articles in to be fair and consistent. Therefore the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. Therefore, I think part of it should be merged with the other article already mentioned. This article is good but if we keep it the price might be we have to let another 100 bad articles in to be fair and consistent. Be brave Hari Singh and say "lets part merge it with the other article" for the greater good and put it in wiki quote--Sikh 1 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The main point is, a non Khalsa Sikh is under moral obligation to live by every law in the Guru Granth Sahib. A Khalsa Sikh is under Legal obligation to live by every law in the Guru Granth Sahib because they have taken the oath and Amrit (in the Amrit ceremony). Therefore, there is a distinction between a Khalsa Sikh and non Khalsa Sikh. Now if a non Khalsa Sikh eats meat Sikhism does not condone it (morally wrong and a sin) but they are NOT breaking their oath and Amrit because they have not taken Amrit and the oath- there is no legal obligation on them but there is a moral obligation.--Sikh 1 19:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional merge Has to be peer reviewed. The article has a lot of merit but leaves door open to other bad articles if this allowed. A merge is the only way forward and input into wiki quote.--Sikh 1 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unencyclopedic and so poorly written as to be almost unreadable. Conceivably an encyclopedic article could be written on the subject, but I've always thought the correct solution to that is to delete now, reconsider later, in the event such an article is written. --04:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: 1). You say that the article is: "Unencyclopedic" The article consists of important quotations on the subject of meat from the Sikh Holy Book - What is "Unencyclopaedic" about these quotations? Quotations are very frequently used in encyclopaedias and articles– so why are these particular quotations "Unencyclopaedic" while the other ones that appear elsewhere in Wikipedia are OK?
    2). You say that: "[The article is] so poorly written as to be almost unreadable" As I have already said, these are quotations from the Holy Text of the Sikh – Clearly, you have no concept of this religion. To you it may appear like a thesis on "Quantum Mechanic" but to a student of Sikhism, these quotations have a deeper and precious meaning and are easily understood. It is for this reason that most Sikhs users have supported the article while non-Sikh generally appear to not support it. --Hari Singh 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it is a violation of Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources), it is written poorly, and it is not encyclopedic in nature. Chris53516 13:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment 1). The article Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources says: "Copying public domain encyclopedias (such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica) and using those articles as a basis for a Wikipedia article on the subject is perfectly OK. Copying specialised encyclopedias may be appropriate in some circumstances….." This original SGGS text forms part of the Public Domain encyclopedias of the Sikhs as it was written in 1708. So, I can see that the above would apply and article based on this text are fine as per the above edict.
    2).You say that: "…it is a violation of Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines". Looking at these guidelines, I note that it says: "Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates" This article has nothing to do with the author or his associates. So how can you say that this is a "Vanity" issue?
    3). You say that: "it is written poorly" – The article is primarily a number of quotations from the Sikh Holy Book – When using quotations in an article, you are not allowed to mis-quote and you are not allowed to change these verbatim quotations – So whenever you quote a person or a text in an article, it’s a mandatory practise not to change or interfere with the way the quote was originally stated – whether poorly or otherwise. So, under the circumstances, your statement appears ill-considered and without merit.
    4). You also say: " it is not encyclopedic in nature" What is "not encyclopaedic" about these quotations? Quotations are very frequently used in encyclopaedias and articles– so why are these particular quotations "not encyclopaedic" while the other ones that appear elsewhere in Wikipedia are OK? --Hari Singh 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and NPOVify to Sikh diet and move that to Sikh dietary restrictions. JoshuaZ 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet notability WP:Importance or verifiability WP:VER requirements. Many parts of the page appear to be copyright violations - if the decision is to keep or merge this article that will have to be fixed either by deleting that text or getting evidence that is has been released under a license compatible with GFDL. Brian 16:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Please, how is this not notable? It discusses meat eating issues for the fifth largest religion based on the primary scripture. Why is it not verifiable? Why is it a copyvio? The Guru Granth Sahib is several hundred years old and is in the public domain so you could quote the entire book and it wouldn't be a copy vio. (btw, I voted to merge with Sikh diet, not keep). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:20, 25 August 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.