Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishnology (2nd nomination)

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. The lack of sourcing that established the subject as a notable topic (or even allowed for a clear definition) was pronounced, and well-developed by those favoring deletion. The great bulk of the support for keeping the article relied on bald assertions of notability, but had difficulty in producing soucing that directly addressed the topic. Most sources offering in the AfD discussion (as opposed to those within the article), were revealed to be based on Wikipedia mirrors. Accordingly, I've deleted the article. I will userify it here for further improvement if desired. Finally, with respect to the category, while I agree in principle with the desire to avoid needless bureaucracy, it wasn't listed at WP:CfD or tagged for deletion, or widely discussed here, so I have declined to take action on it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnology and Category:Krishnology

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

Was considered for deletion in 2005(!), when the result was "no consensus". In the intervening five years, nothing has been done to establish this as a valid topic.

It turns out that the term "Krishnology" has two separate applications, both of them extremely rare:

it sees occasional nonce-usage (the earliest instance we found dates to 1929), in comparisons of the theology of Krishnaism to Christology.
since 2005 or so (vide the creation of our article in August 2005), adherents of ISKCON push the term in the sense of "academic study of Krishnaism" (misattributing that use to Guy Beck, whose 2005 use of the term clearly is that of "parallel to Christology", see p. 75).

On google books, I get 18 hits for the term[1]. According to my count there are 4 (four) hits for the ISKCON usage of the term, all of them dating to 2008 or later. One of these, from 2009, explicitly mentions the "recent" introduction of the term by ISKCON[2]

This is obviously a case of Wikipedia being abused in order to help coining a new term.

I am not opposed to mentioning the term at Krishnaism, and there should be a Wiktionary entry wikt:Krishnology (which I have created myself), but the Krishnology article, as well as the Category:Krishnology, is unsalvageable as a neologism pushed by a religious organization presented as if it was an accepted term in scholarly literature when it has seen all of four mentions over its five-year lifetime.

--dab (𒁳) 10:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since Iskcon has begun to use the term, a mention of the term might be added to that article. The term lacks sufficient notability to have an article at this time. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note It is incorrect. ISKCON did not began to use the term (some former ISKCON members in academia began), but it is not about a term -- it is about the topic which inlcudes but not limited to the usage of the term. Where did you see that ISKCON is the body that began to use the term?

In the first paragraph it says, "...as well as a term advanced by ISKCON used in the sense of 'Krishnaist Theology'. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went looking for sources before reading the article. When I couldn't find anything defining a coherent concept, I went back to read the article to see what else I could search for. To my surprise, all that the article is is a grab-bag of pointers to the various nonce usages of a word and explanations that there isn't such a concept, that I'd already found. The sources cited are the very ones that I'd found explaining that there wasn't any such thing, and using a nonce word in quotation marks. I don't buy the "not improved in five years" argument. I've seen articles that it has taken nine years for the volunteer community to get around to writing. But I do buy the I-cannot-find-any-sources-from-which-even-a-coherent-definition-of-the-field-can-be-obtained argument. There's a different between unwritten because of lack of volunteers and unwritten because it's simply not possible to write. And as far as I've been able to discover, that latter is the case here. There's no concept, and hence there are no sources coherently defining that concept. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the nominator was referring to a lack of usage outside WP, in scholarly literature of the past five years, despite attempts at generating traction. He wasn't arguing via lack of improvement to the article on WP. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have a read of what xe wrote on Talk:Krishnology. Uncle G (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to vote dlelete but found a few sources. [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] None of these are substantial but it does indicate that there may in fact be something behind this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one Wikipedia mirror in book form, Beck as mentioned in the nomination, and two non-definitions, note. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- please. Of course there is "something behind this". You can read all about it at Krishnaism. The point is that "Krishnology" isn't a term with any currency, and ISKCON adherents are trying to give the term a false appearance of acceptance by keeping a Wikipedia article about it. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note There are a number of other uses of various speliings (regardless of the source no 4 in the Slatersteven). I have added a few alternative spellings that give you an idea of the alternative usage of the term, but it is not about the term. If it was about a term, it should have been an article on Wikidictionary (which was created by nominator already), this is a Wikipedia article, and it is about a subject or a topic which is broader than the term itself. This article is in the middle of expansion, and to suggest that there is no concept of Krishology or Krishna theology is rather preposterous. The material was already merged by the nominator into other article on WP, so the material is valid and sources are reliable. The fact that the article should have been expanded in the last 6 years and was not is rather unfortunate, but it is marked for expansion. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWLWikid^as© 07:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - in other words, since you say it "isn't about the term", you are proposing a move. I would also welcome a move, to Krishnaism. O wait, that article already exists. Perhaps just a redirect then. Please make an effort to understand WP:COMMONNAME. "Krishnology" clearly isn't the common name for whatever it is you think it should mean. Perhaps "Krishna theology" is, but I doubt it, seeing the measly 70 hits on google books. WHat you want to do is: (1) introduce a "Theology" section at Krishnaism, and (2) after you have collected enough material to warrant a sub-article, create "Krishna theology" under WP:SS. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, expansion of the article (the tags that you just removed) requires looking at it not as a dictionary definition, but as a theology of Krishna, not necessarily Krishnaism (worship of Krishna). Krishna's theology and theology about Krishna and comparison of Krishna to Christ etc exists outside of Krishnaism, which is about history and details of worship of Krishna. Even if it was the same (which it is not) you can look at precedent Ayyavazhi theology, Ayyavazhi ethics. Article is being expanded, it is true that krishnology is not necessarily a common "term" but the article is an established one. I would welcome comments from other editors who worked on this article, before I vote on 'move' or 'keep'. Wikid ^as© 08:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        An article on Krisha theology was suggested in earlier discussion. This is not a name for it, writing about Krisha theology here is mis-placed, and supporting writing about Krisha theology with original research interpretations of nonce coinages isn't particularly good writing. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Krishnaism: (edit conflict) This may be a case of Wikipedia:Neologism as stated. ~~here Academicals: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases calls it an academic neologism.~~ References (the online ones) used in the article have a trivial mention of the term. I could not books or articles about the term, as Wikipedia:Neologism prescribes. It seems that a section in Krishnaism and wiki-dictionary seems enough for now. I am open to change in my opinion, if books and papers focussing only on Krishnology are found. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again in this discussion, in boldface for the point to sink in: A well-known Wikipedia mirror is not a source. You're basically citing this article as an authority to support itself. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove mirror. Still I could not find references that prove it is not a case of Wikipedia:Neologism. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Article is clearly notable. Also, the arguments above can be misleading. ISKCON was created AFTER this term was, 1966. It has been used in India at least since the 1800's. Maybe some more work should be done on the article, but it is a clear keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think User:Dbachmann and User:Uncle G have summed up the case for deletion. The refs don't really attest to this term either and are a misleading use within the article. —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for completeness, I add that the "alternative spellings" argument above is bogus, too. Krishnaology (AfD discussion) was deleted in 2005 for, basically, complete nonexistence even as a nonce coinage. I actually checked that one when I did my research mentioned above, before the additional names were even added to this discussion. What was true back then appears to be still true today. Its only existence at all is in Wikipedia and mirrors. The same is true for all of the others bar one. That one, "krishnalogy", has a single nonce coinage use in quotation marks, and no actual definition of a concept. Uncle G (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a notable topic and satisfies the general notability guidelines. Nominator is not denying that topic is covered by multiple reliable sources. Sources are cited and there is not a single unsourced statement in this article, all sources are good. I do not agree with the arguments that it is a definition. It is actually a theological article with a number of avenues of expansion. Renaming if necessary can be discussed on the talk page. Merging is not an option as it is about two different things. The discussion if it is a neologism or not may be relevant, but since the article is not limited to its titles and there are so many spellings of it even if it was about this specific title, it should be retained. So overall, the deletion appears to be biased. I have not worked much on the article prior to this deletion, but I can see that the topic is expandable, and even if it remains a stub, it will serve the purposes of WP. Also the process of nomination of the CfD, was not followed. Category is not tagged so it is obvious technical keep as well. Wikid ^as© 07:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment note the "party-line" keep votes above from ISKCON editors who are in fact the party pushing this neologism on Wikipedia. Imho such votes should be discounted. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term is not notable on its own. Does not qualify for a separate article--Sodabottle (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^comment 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Pretty clearly a non-notable neologism with little or no use outside of WP. Good nomination. SnottyWong ^comment 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stub for article, but delete the category. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer The above !vote by Ism schism is a duplicate, my strike through was reverted with the edit summary "rvv". That's the extent of the argument for keeping this on WP. —SpacemanSpiff 08:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note This is Ad hominem abuse. There are two different objects up for deletion - I have clarified my opinion on the matter on each. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - as an alternative to deletion closing admin should consider to Userfy article, since it was clearly marked for expansion by user Ism, it can be moved to his userspace. Wikid ^as© 05:25, 2 September 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.