Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dakini

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 wasarticle was speedily deleted by Tawker to allow original article to be moved back. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dakini

This article is completely composed of bogus

• Strong delete Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge
  WP:AGF are what is called for here.--Isotope23 16:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The content of the article put up for deletion has no basis in fact. It is completely unsupportable. Also, this is not a dispute between two individuals. The original Dakini article which was moved to Dakini(Buddhism) is the result of editing by multiple editors over several years. It was unilaterally moved and replaced by complete rubbish which is completely made-up and unrelated to any scholarly study of the concept. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those last two paragraphs on dakinis in Tibetan tantric practice are (I think) accurate, if unsourced (though I think they come from well-regarded books on Tibetan Buddhism by Reginald Ray). I recommend they be preserved in any merge, perhaps with a request for citations. — Sandover 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment exactly. A merge does not necessarily denote that the entirety fo both articles needs to exist in one merged article. What can be sourced from the current
      unverified. From the looks of it Dakini(Buddhism) is well sourced and the info there should be incorporated back into the Dakini with a redirect from Dakini(Buddhism) to Dakini. The point is that all of this effort could be boldly done without an AfD; This is a content issue and there is nothing here that needs to be deleted. If there is a problem with this because specific editors don't agree with this course of action or are reverting changes without discussion than this is a situation that needs to be dealt with through a Request for Comment or Mediation. Bottom line, there is really no reason for an AfD here.--Isotope23 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete to make room to move the original article back. A.J.A. 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, There is no reason to delete to move original content back... that is just a move and requires no deletion.--Isotope23 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So, are you saying I should simply speedy this? So the original article can be moved back? Because the suggested material to be merged was actually taken from the original article and is already in it. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment you can't speedy it, there is no speedy reason that covers this, but I suggest going to the Admin noticeboard and requesting that an admin undo the move that was done without any discussion. I understand why you AfD'd this now... I forgot about the History.--Isotope23 20:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is a speedy reason that covers it, to move back an article that was moved without consensus. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Under G6? You could try it. I'm not sure this qualified as non-controversial, but you could tag it as such and see if an admin will fix it as a housekeeping move. I'd still explain the situation on AN/I so the admin understands why it is tagged CSD.--Isotope23 20:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ekajati. -999 (Talk) 17:43, 2 October 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.