The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
New article with major POV problems. Nothing but a biased rant against Hindus. Topic could be covered in other existing articles such as Terrorism in India etc. Dmol ( talk) 07:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article hindu jihad is changed
*Delete: The improvements don't solve the problem. References #1 and 13 are forums. #2, #4, 10, 11, 12 and 14 are blogs/self-published sites. #6 is a video uploading site, with no mention of this topic (even if the right video is found, it would probably still not be a valid reference for copyvio and/or reliability concerns). #3, 5, 8, 9, 10 are all direct references to the Bhagavad Gita, which is a primary source at best--any application of jihad to those texts would be an act of OR. Thus, not a single one of those "references" meets the requirements of
WP:RS. If you are considered continuing to work on this article (either before deletion or after in your userspace), I strongly encourage you to read
the policy on reliable sources and
the policy on original research. (striking my previous comment because it pertained to a 100% different version of the article).
Qwyrxian (
talk) 06:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
New article with major POV problems. Nothing but a biased rant against Hindus. Topic could be covered in other existing articles such as Terrorism in India etc. Dmol ( talk) 07:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article hindu jihad is changed
*Delete: The improvements don't solve the problem. References #1 and 13 are forums. #2, #4, 10, 11, 12 and 14 are blogs/self-published sites. #6 is a video uploading site, with no mention of this topic (even if the right video is found, it would probably still not be a valid reference for copyvio and/or reliability concerns). #3, 5, 8, 9, 10 are all direct references to the Bhagavad Gita, which is a primary source at best--any application of jihad to those texts would be an act of OR. Thus, not a single one of those "references" meets the requirements of
WP:RS. If you are considered continuing to work on this article (either before deletion or after in your userspace), I strongly encourage you to read
the policy on reliable sources and
the policy on original research. (striking my previous comment because it pertained to a 100% different version of the article).
Qwyrxian (
talk) 06:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
reply