Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skandha (disambiguation)

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. As pointed out, the page is actually pointless at the moment, especially as it has no incoming links. As pointed out in the nom, if someone feels there is a neutrality issue then start an RM at Skandha to move the pages around and then create a dab. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skandha (disambiguation)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unnecessary dab page as there is a main topic and one disambiguated topic which can be handled in a hatnote. An editor believes the dab page is needed to preserve neutrality: they could propose a page move of the Buddhist topic to Skandha (Buddhism), but at present there is no need for this disambiguation page. PamD 22:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant DAB, Skandha at the base name is the primary topic, and with hatnotes both there, in Skandha (Jainism), and in Skanda (Buddhism) we should be covered. Sam Sailor 22:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. We basically always keep pages that disambiguate three articles, even with a primary topic. Only notable concern is that one of the subjects is a mispelling, but even so, they are all similar enough in pronunciation that there could be confusion, hence the DAB page. It's serving a purpose, and it's not like a DAB page is doing any harm to the project by existing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1. Can be used when absolute neutrality is required. 2. Important to avoid religious discrimination. 3. An article can be primary from one point of view, but not from all points of views. Eg I didn't even know there is someting called Skandha in buddhism before I clicked on a wikilink for Skandha from inside a Jain article pudgala which incorrectly linked to Buddhist article (I have correct link since then) Realphi (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Skanda. Since Skanda (Buddhism) is spelled differently than "Skandha", the DAB page should only include "Skandha (Jainism)" and a "see also" section linking to "Skanda". I think merging the two DABs that contain "Skanda" and "Skandha" would be the best way to go forward. It would not be the first DAB page that includes multiple spellings. Regards So Why 13:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delele There are only 2 pages and no need for a disambig page. A hat note is sufficient. A hat note does not mean that one topic is "fringe". I already discussed this with the creator and basically ended with IDHT. Natureium (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Skanda, inclined towards merging. older ≠ wiser 17:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS. IMO a compelling argument could be made that Skandha is the primary topic (using Wikipedia's definition of primary topic) based on the relative number of adherents and number of hits from a google scholar search. Therefore a hatnote there should be sufficient, and Realphi has already added an additional bullet under "see also" at Skanda for the Jainism topic. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one more relevant entry in "see also" section. Please check if it changes your opinion. Realphi (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, merge with Skanda, as these two terms are quite similar in pronuncation and are likely to be confused, so disambiguating them on the same page makes the most sense. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2018 (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.