Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satchidananda

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 redirect to Satcitananda. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satchidananda

Delete this article has been the subject of an edit war over whether added original content and content sourced to youtube videos can expand this beyond a WP:DICDEF - apparently not. WP is not a Sanskrit dictionary; ordinarily I would tag this with {{copy to wiktionary}} but Sanskrit does not use the Latin alphabet nor is even the definition sourced, so why foist this upon them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Satcitananda. The "resistance" over redirecting appears to be over the perceived narrowness in subject of Satcitananda. If this is the case, then expand Satcitananda to include a section on the use of the word in yoga, but a second article for an alternative spelling is silly. Plastikspork (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as in Plastikspork's suggestion. Agreed, if this is an alternate spelling based on the same concept but occurring in a different context, I think that belongs on the main page, with mention of the distinction. Cazort (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Carlos Suaraez. Why foist this upon them? Because Satchidananda is a very important concept in all of Yoga, and since most do not at this time read Devanagri script, the words are so the concept is more clear: In Sanskrit the meaning is transmitted through the sound of words, in the pitches and vowels and letters used. Shanthi, Shanthi, Shanthi is Peace Peace Peace. --Rudraksha108 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the last four decades and three years this word has been used in the English-speaking world in the name of Swami Satchidananda, always spelled this way. Swami Satchidananda It is not a part of the Sri Aurobindo or Hare Krishna work, therefore, please keep the concept independent as a way to understand knowledge of this concept and not have it be appropriated by groups with an axe to grind.--Rudraksha108 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of reasons to welcome diversity and multimedia here. I am sure that it will enrich this site no end. Om Shanthi. --Rudraksha108 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudraksha108 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If pages are a target for vandalism, edit wars, or promotion of an agenda, I think the appropriate response is to semiprotect and/or warn and possibly (in extreme cases) ban offending users. I think arguments about edit wars and vandalism are not really relevant to whether we should keep, merge, or delete a page--we need to decide this based on the merits of the subject and its sourceability alone--and then once we've reached a consensus about what we want to do, we can begin to discuss how to maintain the integrity of the page and protect it against vandalism and edit wars. Cazort (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the persuasive arguments from Rudraksha108 Chzz ► 16:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Satcitananda and protect. This is simply an alternate transliteration of the Sanskrit term. There are different views and interpretations of the philosophical concept that should be covered in one place and not in a content fork. Abecedare (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Satcitananda , alternate spelling. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:24, 7 March 2009 (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.