Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Buddhism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:07, 4 February 2024

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Buddhism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Buddhism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Buddhism. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Buddhism/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Buddhism

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serfdom in Tibet controversy

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a fairly unusual XfD but I submit that this article is based in large part on original research, despite citing a decent number of sources. The entire article plays out as a tit-for-tat "China says this" vs "Tibet exile/apologist says that" and there isn't really an attempt to actually frame anything within the context of "what actually happened".

It's understandable to say "the issue is contentious" but when the entire article becomes a matter of paraphrasing different POVs, there's very little that a reader can actually take out of the article. The only "real" encyclopedic piece of work I can see is "Tibetan welfare after the Chinese takeover", which itself does not seem particularly germane to the question of whether serfdom existed in Tibet prior to 1951, other than, perhaps, insinuating that the Chinese government does not care about Tibet or rather that the Tibetan social structure is so rigid that reforms have only been partially successful. Regardless, it does not feel as if this segment is appropriate for inclusion as a matter of historicity.

The same topic is covered to some length in the article Social class in Tibet, which approaches a similar topic from a perspective much more aligned with the standards on Wikipedia. I understand that approaching an article entitled "Controversy" is understandably difficult, but articles like Investiture Controversy and Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion handle their respective topics with substantially more grace and include the proper historical context instead of devolving eventually to namedropping entities and/or historians and assigning respective quotations without any contextualization as to what they mean. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, History, Buddhism, Geography, Social science, Asia, and Central Asia. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & rewrite. Regardless of whether serfdom has or has not existed in Tibet, the topic has gained enough traction and is notable. A quick search of "serfdom in Tibet" on Google Scholar brings up loads of articles: [1]. Social class in Tibet is a suitable article, but I think this topic deserves its own page.

That being said, if this article survives AfD, it will need to be significantly rewritten. Definitely don't make WP:POV forks out of it, but then I agree that there must be significant effort to compare POVs into a coherent article. We can also jettison the "Human rights in Tibet" section. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rewrite. I'd mostly agree with The Lonely Panther's position here, that the debate itself deserves its own article, mostly even just to keep track of all the perspectives on the issues. The 'serfdom controversy' is significant enough on its own, as seen by the size of the literature, to deserve a separate article from Chinese administration in Tibet and the controversy over that.

Potential rewrite could for sure use a lot more definitions and information on the structure, prevalence, and development of class structures throughout Tibetan history. Additionally more detail on exactly which historical events contain 'competing versions of Tibetan History', such as the disagreements over the nature of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, is vital. Literal sun (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Tainer

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years. It was tagged as the sources only give him a passing mention. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Religion. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On the basis of initial searches, certainly seems to fail WP:NPROF but there's a bit of information that might point to GNG so will check that out. He is the co author of this recently published book: [2]. This is the only book I found, and it is too new to meet WP:NAUTHOR but pointing it out as there is some publicity related to it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think fails NPROF, but passes on GNG. The article has:

Lojeski, Karen Sobel (2009). Leading the Virtual Workforce: How Great Leaders Transform Organizations in the 21st Century. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-42280-9.

This WP:RS says, inter alia: Steven A. Tainer is one of the first students of Tibetan Buddhism in the West. He has studied Eastern contemplative traditions intensively for forty years with many Tibetan, Chinese, and Korean masters [...] Steven has served on the faculty of the Institute for World Religions and the Berkeley Buddhist Monastery since 1995. He is a faculty member of the Kira Institute (www.kira.org), which explores the interface between modern, scientifically-framed perspectives and matters involving human values. He is also the co-founder and Editor of WoK (www.waysofknowing.net/) (Page 24). Now being the founder and editor of a website is not enough for GNG, and serving on faculty is not enough for NPROF, but this write up itself looks like SIGCOV in a reliable secondary source. It is not just this one, either. The IAS, no less, mentions him [3] which also tells us: Steven Tainer is in the unique position of being trained as a philosopher of science (at the University of Michigan), before starting on a dual career in computer science and philosophy. In his first capacity, he was director of the product design and training departments for Cubicomp Corporation, a computer graphics company. There are plenty more. This person looks notable to me, and there appears to be plenty to say about him in an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Steven Tainer is a person whose biography describes those of this century who are integrating Eastern thought into Western culture. He is an exquisite example of this phenomenon and has substantial credentials to qualify him, as listed in his biography. ( Do we need a new category for this?) Also, as described in his biography, Steven's personal philosophy embodies humility, and he has not acted to raise his personal profile or gain recognition and praise... he has avoided such activities. But please don't let this 'low profile' confuse the issue. He is a notable part of a fascinating cultural phenomenon and philosophical/spiritual renaissance in our country, in our culture, and is a person of great influence (his contributions delineated in this Wiki article), important in our time and going forward. His details elucidate this cultural phenomenon. JeanneCourtney (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia JeanneCourtney. His own low profile won't count against him. The article will be kept or not based on what others have said about him, particularly in reliable secondary sources (books, research papers, documentaries, etc.) As above, I think others have said enough, but we will see if anyone disagrees. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Keep, his contribution appears to be quite significant, it is just that his profile lacking sufficient resources Rapanomics (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion of what makes someone notable. Who is writing about Tainer? Where are they writing it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The two sources found by Sirfurboy are the best case for keep, but I think they are quite borderline and would prefer a bit more substantial coverage. The IAS source only has a short paragraph on Tainer, and he seems mainly to be covered as background to a collaboration that they planned to work on together. The other source is from a reliable publisher, but the author is not really in the same field, and the coverage is again not massively in-depth. I tried to find other supporting sources but could only find passing mentions. Shapeyness (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]