Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sivalinga as phallus

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 merge to Lingam. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sivalinga as phallus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:POVFORK of Linga being a phallus theory. The text in the article itself contests the theory. It starts with Vivekananda questioning the theory. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this during a cleanup effort by moving material unduly impacting the Lingam article. Currently, it consists of a predictably biased quote-farm; proper editing can fix this, as the issue is indeed a real one, philologically. Unfortunately, the issue is also a radioactive one, and therefore a cruft magnet, which is why I think an article on this separate from Lingam is needed anyway. Delete this one and in the fullness of time another one will appear for sure. The correct approach is to make a proper article of it so that the WP-ecological niche remains occupied. (I'm not partial to the current title; a better one would do nicely) rudra (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cleanup should not result in giving undue importance to a single aspect thereby neglecting NPOV --NotedGrant Talk 14:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think instead of overloading the main article, its better to have a article which discusses both the views in detail. I agree that the current version of the article is in bad shape, a does not mention all the POVs, but this can be improved. I have added a couple of them. We can improve this article with different views—for and against—and then we can summarize the issues in the main article. I think we can also decide upon a better title.--TheMandarin (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is really short and the addition of more Info (referenced) can improve the quality of the article--NotedGrant Talk 14:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lingam A new article on the same topic gives undue importance to a non significant pov (at least not as significant as the main article) The article should be cleaned up of the quote farm and merged with the original article in a new section.--NotedGrant Talk 15:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lingam. Simply does not seem to be enough here to justify new article. If main article gets too big, then we can fork.TheRingess (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support a Merge, but not a redirect. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lingam as per nomination and TheRingess --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lingam. A textbook example of a content fork. Unlike the academic study of Hinduism, Wikipedia is not censored in line with Victorian sensibilities. Actually it is becoming so, but according to Wikipedia policy and basic ethical standards, it shouldn't be. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 12 February 2010 (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.