Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noninterference (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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noninterference (Buddhism)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

From searches on Google Scholar and News there does not appear to be a notable connection between Buddhism and the concept-of non-interference. Standard reference works like the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism and Thomson-Gale's Encyclopedia of Buddhism do not contain any mentioning of the subject, let alone an entry on it. The wiki article as it is now, is completely unsourced and contains no evidence of notability. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG; article is unsourced, I found no reliable source in Google, Google books, G scholar, Jstor etc. Appears to be WP:OR. JimRenge (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The recent lengthy addition, which probably prompted this AfD, is entirely WP:OR and runs afoul of WP:NOTESSAY, while its promotion of Buddhism in Wikipedia's voice is WP:POV. That definitely has to go whatever the outcome of this AfD. That leaves us with the original single sentence that sounds to me like it could be a Buddhist principle, but I'm not seeing any verification of it. There is the Buddhist idea of detachment through meditation, but that is not quite the same thing and in any case a single sentence will say no more than is already in the Buddhism article. I'm seeing references in sources to two meanings of Buddhist non-interference, neither of which matches the definition given in this article (...the idea that all things are impermanent, with a resignation to events beyond human control.). The first is the idea that Buddhist monks should not interfere in worldly affairs (e.g. Encyclopedia of Monasticism) and the second is non-interference with local religious practices (e.g. Encyclopedia of Buddhism). I have no objection to creation of a well-sourced article at this title, but there is nothing worth keeping in the current offering. SpinningSpark 11:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, Thanks for pointing out that instance of non-interference that i missed in Buswell's encyclopedia. Still, my argument holds, so I am glad we agree on this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be completely original research WP:NOR and a personal essay WP:NOTESSAY - does not meet WP:GNG, has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2019 (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.