Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tachikawa-ryu (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:42, 19 June 2015

Tachikawa-ryu

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

This article has serious reliability and verifiability problems. The overwhelming majority of this article traces back to John Stevens who is not reliable. Mr. Stevens believes that Tachikawa-ryu persists to this very day as some sort of secret underground sex cult. Additionally Stevens’s “Tantra of the Tachikawa Ryu” is a work of erotic fiction and certainly not a reliable source. The Tachikawa-ryu article on Japanese Wikipedia may or may not have reliable sources, but they aren’t doing this article any good, and there’s no indication that they ever will.

Additionally, parts of the article are written from such a ridiculously in-universe perspective as to be totally incomprehensible. This article has been tagged for years; it’s high time it got deleted. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 02:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adds Japanese {{Find sources AFD}}, and definitely reveals multiple books and news dedicated to the school (on various stances, I might add). It should be noted that I find after a cursory read that sourcing here is much deficient compared with the vast amount of text in the body. I have no objection to a WP:TNT to start over if editors with expertise here thinks so. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument was made during the last deletion discussion four years ago. Since then these allegedly reliable sources have not found their way into the article. If there are no editors with the language skills, willingness, and competence to fix the article then all the sources on Earth aren’t going to help. Should we really keep a bad article around indefinitely because it might get better? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Buddhism|list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Everymorning|<font color="orange">Everymorning</font>]] [[User talk:Everymorning|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 02:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)</small>
 *'''Keep''' Adds Japanese {{template|Find sources AFD}}, and definitely reveals multiple books and news dedicated to the school (on various stances, I might add). It should be noted that I find after a cursory read that sourcing here is much deficient compared with the vast amount of text in the body. I have no objection to a [[WP:TNT]] to start over if editors with expertise here thinks so. '''<span style="color:#4682b4">野狼院ひさし</span>''' <small style="font-size:85%;">[[User:Hisashiyarouin|u]]/[[User Talk:Hisashiyarouin|t]]/[[Special:Contribs/Hisashiyarouin|c]]</small> 04:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
+::The same argument was made during the last deletion discussion four years ago.  Since then these allegedly reliable sources have not found their way into the article.  If there are no editors with the language skills, willingness, and competence to fix the article then all the sources on Earth aren’t going to help.  Should we really keep a bad article around indefinitely because it ''might'' get better?  [[Special:Contributions/76.107.171.90|76.107.171.90]] ([[User talk:76.107.171.90|talk]]) 07:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)