Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Blunders of the World

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. The article is well-referenced, and the primary argument for merging is that this wasn't a really important part of Gandhi's beliefs. However, it has been pointed out that this article (which is currently a stub) is certainly eligible for expansion in future, and that references aren't too hard to find. SalaSkan 11:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Blunders of the World

[edit]
  • Keep or Merge. This is concise knowledge distilled from experience and observation of the human condition, it belongs as an encyclopedic entry somewhere - it should be both preserved and accessible to humanity - even if it is only a footnote.
Seven Blunders of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Just a philosophical list that Mahatma Gandhi gave to his grandson. This article stands little chance of being expanded. I suggest merging the content to Mahatma Gandhi by creating a new section. AW 14:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: when @pple nominated merging, the article looked like this and now looks like this. Maybe all stubs should be brought to AFD to encourage the contributors to expand.

KEEP THIS! This is important stuff. It is easily expandable, and Gandhi, frankly, was right. This list has within it the answers to the human condition and crisis. Leave it alone!

Agreed--the information is valuable, but the article doesn't make much of an article by itself.

  • Keep. It's worth having its own entry, imo.
  • Delete. No notability independent of Gandhi demonstrated in this article. Every utterance or turn of phrase of any given famous person does not merit an article of its own. It's quoted a lot so gets a decent number of Ghits, but unless someone can provide references that actually treat this as a subject .. Arkyan • (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Detailed commentaries in notable sources , such as Arun Gandhi's [1] and Stephen Covey's [2] treat this as a subject on its own. Hopefully this helps. deeptrivia (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need to remember that this is an online encyclopedia, not bound by page space like its paper counterparts. Why the push to delete/merge it? I think it would be better to have more 'documents contents' for us to examine on their own, and this is one such document. At least to be able to read the content of important documents has great value, and I think this is one such document. It could be expanded in several ways that woudl be distinct from a general article on Gandhi himself. Humbleservant 11:40 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Leaving it as a separate article would encourage future contributors to expand on the list with material about what Ghandi meant by each of those, or how they have been applied. There may be other historical information to contribute. People may also note references to this list from other works, or in the news, or in popular culture. Cos 15:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you say "future contributors", "there may be", "people may" is just speculation. I don't know how expansive this article will be in the future, but now it's just a mere list with no further information about how they are applied or referenced. Thus I suggest merging. If the content can be expanded as you say, future contributors may create a article for it. AW 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That speculation is what the entire wiki philosophy is based on: Article will be of significant quality some day. So, "lacking in current state" is not a valid ground to remove something. If the subject is of importance, it deserves an article. Whether its a one liner stub or a featured article. Someday it will be of high standards. But yeah, things look out of context with this list. Merge is probably a good idea. But where? Into the Mahatma Gandhi article or the Arun Gandhi one? I think the latter would be better. --soum talk 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like to see this expanded with any historical impact, ie notices of works where these are referred to. Also any additional commentary by Ghandi if it exists. Ocicat 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expansion would reduce its impact. It is easily valuable enough to keep.
  • Comment/Question. Where in the Wikipedia policies does it say that an article needs to be a certain length in order to be left as a stand-alone article? Dave Runger 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Delete I don't know if it states that... but i do know WP:NOT clearly states deictionary definition are not included. I personally don't see anyway this article can be expanded beyond being a basic definition. Also WP:SIZE insinuates that short pages should be merged into larger related articles, i think something as trivial as this list definetly should not have it's own article. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Apart from "definition" (which is more like a description), the article has a bit of history associated with it. A section about notable commentaries, such as Arun Gandhi's [3] and Stephen Covey's [4] is coming up. Hopefully this helps. deeptrivia (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. As said before, it needs to be expanded, but that's not grounds for deletion. In particular, it needs a "cultural impact" section. Dnavarro
  • Keep. It is a good lesson to learn. Even if arrived at by chance, even if somewhat redundant, its reading will be likely to help the Planet.Tommy Mandel 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Even though I agree with keep, just saying that "its reading will be likely to help the Planet." is not reason enough. Shabda
  • Strong Keep This looks important to have an entry of its own. Shabda
  • Keep 300 votes and 100 comments on the front page of Reddit shows that it is interesting and relevant [5] cojoco 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Doesn't seem like a significant part of his philosophy, according to the current version of the article. It can bide some time as part of the main article (be that on Ghandi himself or his philosophy). --Gwern (contribs) 22:11 9 July 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep or Merge. Keeping it would be my preference, so that through later development of Gandhi and Gandhism the topic doesn't get forked between them like it might if merged. Those articles are also very long already. And also, the topic does (appear to) have enough interest and notoriety to stand on its own. So long as its not deleted entirely. Anakin (contribs, complaints) 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This can stand on its own , but needs to be expanded Neoryder
  • Merge into Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhism. The list is worth keeping, but can't stand on its own in it's current state. If further information about the list were to be added in the future then we should consider re-separating the two articles. To say that the article could grow is speculative. Brian Willis 01:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list does not stand by itself and depends on the assumed "sanctity" of Ghandi for its stature. Inclusion of list apart from Ghandi is a sentimental item.
  • Keep - it's a simple, clear enough concept that being able to look it up directly is better than it being buried in another longer article like Ghandism. And it's perfectly acceptable to keep an article that *may one day* be expanded - this is a Wiki, after all. What do you think a stub is? Hopefully one day there will be some commentary, criticism, etc added. Stevage 03:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While many of the other keep !votes here have argued about the list being useful, or because of the potential for expansion, which last time I heard weren't particularly good reasons, I would point out that the content of the article is verifiable, and indeed referenced, and a quick Google Scholar search on "seven blunders" has brought up what appear to be a non-trivial references to the concept in a number of publications, which I would say service to make this notable in its own right, not just in relation to Mahatma Gandhi. Confusing Manifestation 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Gandhism (with redirect from "seven blunders" pointing to "Gandhism"), or Keep if article loses its "stub" designation. Also, whether kept or merged, it would seem that the title should be "Seven Blunders".. this is how they are referred to on the more authoritative Gandhi Institute website. The title "The Seven Blunders of the World" appears to have been created by neither Gandhi nor his grandson, but instead a 3rd party who has added a few extra lines of his own. Bezapt 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out several sources, such as this, and it does look like the title is correct. deeptrivia (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The philosophy relates to LIFE - It has not much to do with Gandhi This article cannot be merged with Gandhi related analysis, it will only be distracting. If at all it has to be around, it should stand by itself or be merged with ethics/ morals/ philosophy related topics. Agree, it's not really an article, though interesting to read. 203.187.199.30 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Purvi[reply]

The fact that this could be relevant to both Gandhism and ethics/ morals/ philosophy related articles suggest that it would be better to have it standalone. One might decide to refer to this article from articles on business ethics, research ethics, ethics of war, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article should be kept as a stand alone article. The moral value is immeasurable and can be used to expand the thoughts of anyone. I arrived at this article through looking at "The Seven Wonders of the World" and not through any reference of Ghandi so merging it into Ghandi would be a waste. Without that link being where and what it is, I would not have had the chance to read such an enlightening piece.*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.238.27 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 July 2007

KEEP: this is such a wonderful and knowledgeful information. Please keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.218.152.190 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 July 2007

Keep: This is a very important philosophy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinequest (talk • contribs)


Keep -- It would take up too much space if merged with the Ghandi article, in which case you'd have to rewrite, shorten, and link to its own article anyways.

Comment It is only Seven Lines. The rest is purely Trivia. -- Jimmi Hugh 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a bad comparison, but Four Noble Truths is only four lines. :) deeptrivia (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seven_Blunders_of_the_World&oldid=1138757552"