The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Jonas Silk has no past on Wikipedia and is requesting deletion practically exclusively for this page. He created his account at Wikipedia just for this. Not reliable. Request for deletion to be rejected by Wikipedia. No experience on Wikipedia. Sock Puppet. Unreliable. Geir Smith 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Right now today, Nat Krause deleted two times without previous talking to people on one page, repeatedly (the same section of the same page), in his usual pattern of behaviour. POV and against Wikipedia of wrongful deletion. I've warned him there that three reverts in less than a day makes his editing rights be suspended by policy : so he's been warned if Wikipedia chooses to suspend him. His vandalism is wrong and his POV in his obstinate reverting and deleting is also wrong. How much can one stand from the same person over and over ? Geir Smith 22:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A new version of the deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kalachakra. It's a POV fork of Kalachakra, most of which is reproduced wholesale. unsigned by Jonas Silk
Hi there, this is Rudy Harderwijk, (webmaster of www.kalachakranet.org, www.jonangfoundation.org and www.rimebuddhism.com); if I may give my POV; I think the basic information on this page is OK, but this page is called Kalachakra Kings - to begin with, an expression I've never seen or heard of before, then the page meanders out on all kinds of subjects - very good as such, but why is that information not simply where it should be - on the pages of the Kalachakra tantra, Shambhala etc.? All the references to the "ban" and Shugden give the strong impression that this page was not created to supply information, but to give a POV. (Rudyh01 - April 9, 2006).