Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddha - God or Man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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, keep by default - I count 4 clear keep votes out of 17, which is less than three-quarters support for deletion. The 'keep' voters have valid objections. I exercise some discretion in deciding to keep. - Richardcavell 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Buddha - God or Man
Contains misguiding content (Buddhism is non-theistic); most part of the article has no valuable points and are of speculations, while some minor useful information should be merged with Buddha and is not worthy of an independent page. See Talk:Buddha_-_God_or_Man for more.
- Delete. I say delete this page. There is no need for an article about a speculation about whether Buddha was God or man. It is widely accepted that Buddha was not a God, he even stated he was NOT a God. So no merit in keeping an article about a speculation, even when the person himself has stated he was NOT. Other then that, some contents featured in the article might be useful if add it to Buddhology (the nature of Buddhas). Monkey Brain 00:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- This article is not about speculation on whether Buddha was a God or man. It is a description of common Buddhist beliefs on the subject. I have suggested a merge of this page myself, but there's no reason to use the AfD process for a page merge. Heck, you could do the merge yourself right now, if you want.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Buddha - God or Man", seems pretty much like a speculation to me. And as for the merging, I have said, it might be useful to merge. But that's only if others can identify the usefulness of these information. Other then that, I myself am in favor of deletion, but the reason for deletion is simply because the article is a speculation in nature. And speculation itself is not enough for an article. And as I have said, merge only the ones, which if others can identify as useful, to the either Buddhology/Buddha's main article. Monkey Brain 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the speculation in the article? I agree that the title "Buddha - God or Man" sounds speculative. It's not a very good title. That is remediable by using the move function.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have took out the sections which I thought were unrelated. And I have moved some contents over to the God in Buddhism (God as manifestation of the Mind). But the rest that are left, are already stated in Buddhology (the nature of Buddhas). So the article is ready for deletion. Monkey Brain(talk) 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the speculation in the article? I agree that the title "Buddha - God or Man" sounds speculative. It's not a very good title. That is remediable by using the move function.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Buddha - God or Man", seems pretty much like a speculation to me. And as for the merging, I have said, it might be useful to merge. But that's only if others can identify the usefulness of these information. Other then that, I myself am in favor of deletion, but the reason for deletion is simply because the article is a speculation in nature. And speculation itself is not enough for an article. And as I have said, merge only the ones, which if others can identify as useful, to the either Buddhology/Buddha's main article. Monkey Brain 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- This article is not about speculation on whether Buddha was a God or man. It is a description of common Buddhist beliefs on the subject. I have suggested a merge of this page myself, but there's no reason to use the AfD process for a page merge. Heck, you could do the merge yourself right now, if you want.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Merge then Delete. After some cleanups the rest useful part is not big enough to stand for its own article. -- G.S.K.Lee 02:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I am really not an expert on Buddhism, so can't be sure if the article is Original research or not. --Ageo020 02:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. No serious case for deletion has been made: "misguiding content", "no valuable points", etc. are entirely the opinion of the nominator, who has certainly not demonstrated himself to have any particular expertise on the subject. I don't know what he is referring to by "speculations". A possible merge with other articles has been discussed on talk by the main authors of the article, and this discussion should proceed normally without reference to this AfD.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:OR & WP:POV This is original research because the authors are not citing the works of noted scholars, but quoting translations of a couple of fragments of buddhist literature and making their own personal interpretations. --Xrblsnggt 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- What are the personal interpretations that you feel are being made here? What is the POV that you believe the authors are pushing?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Seems to be a potentially interesting review as the to Buddha-nature, but I am inexpert enough to judge solely on the content. I'd like to see only proclaimed Buddhism experts participate in this vote, so that votes such as mine could be invalidated by more learned authorities. Having to vote on something like this is one area where WP seems weak. linas 04:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Given that this is not a vote, that final statement has no foundation. And the way that we solve these things on Wikipedia is not by having editors assert subject expertise (which is impossible to confirm), but by citing sources. An expert editor should be in a position to easily locate and cite reliable sources on the subject matter to demonstrate that it is both verifiable and not original research. Expertise is expected to involve knowing where the subject-matter sources are. (See Wikipedia:Expert editors.) I encourage the editors who are wanting this article kept to cite sources on the subject. Uncle G 12:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Given that this is not a vote, I imagine, then, that the fact that the editors suggesting deletion outnumber those suggesting keep by (currently) 5 to 2 will ultimately be considered irrelevant, right?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- If sources where this topic has already been the subject of analysis are cited to demonstrate that the article is not original research, yes. But despite encouragement, no-one wanting this article kept has yet cited a single such source. Uncle G 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- This article cites more sources than the average Wikipedia article. Wouldn't a {{fact}} be more constructive? However, I'm no longer very concerned about this matter, because much of the material has already been merged to another article, and the authors of Buddha - God or Man don't seem very interested in defending it.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Zero sources (which is what the article cites) cannot be more than the average. Uncle G 19:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was referring, naturally, to the article as it existed when it was nominated for deletion. There were 5 sources cited. These have apparently been removed by Monkeykiss, the nominator, when she merged text to God in Buddhism.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I, not she (remember: there are no girls on the intraweb :P), moved a section (god is manifestation of the mind) over to the God in Buddhism, where I thought it was more related. And the four references that were stated were not removed but simply moved to God in Buddhism article at the near end. The rest of the article is left so that others can see that it is fit for deletion. Monkey Brain(talk) 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was referring, naturally, to the article as it existed when it was nominated for deletion. There were 5 sources cited. These have apparently been removed by Monkeykiss, the nominator, when she merged text to God in Buddhism.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Zero sources (which is what the article cites) cannot be more than the average. Uncle G 19:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- This article cites more sources than the average Wikipedia article. Wouldn't a {{fact}} be more constructive? However, I'm no longer very concerned about this matter, because much of the material has already been merged to another article, and the authors of Buddha - God or Man don't seem very interested in defending it.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- If sources where this topic has already been the subject of analysis are cited to demonstrate that the article is not original research, yes. But despite encouragement, no-one wanting this article kept has yet cited a single such source. Uncle G 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Given that this is not a vote, I imagine, then, that the fact that the editors suggesting deletion outnumber those suggesting keep by (currently) 5 to 2 will ultimately be considered irrelevant, right?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Given that this is not a vote, that final statement has no foundation. And the way that we solve these things on Wikipedia is not by having editors assert subject expertise (which is impossible to confirm), but by citing sources. An expert editor should be in a position to easily locate and cite reliable sources on the subject matter to demonstrate that it is both verifiable and not original research. Expertise is expected to involve knowing where the subject-matter sources are. (See Wikipedia:Expert editors.) I encourage the editors who are wanting this article kept to cite sources on the subject. Uncle G 12:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:OR -- Koffieyahoo 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:OR & WP:POV. Medtopic 08:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: there are some sources and the main text is full of quotes from named places. Even after removing all unsourced material, there is interesting stuff left. Stephen B Streater 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:OR & per nom. 64.210.19.234 16:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:OR & WP:POV. Possibly merge cited material to God in Buddhism and/or Buddhology. —Hanuman Das 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have yet to hear an explanation of what the alleged POV of the article is.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete looks far too much like a POV fork for my liking. Just zis Guy you know? 10:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or, failing that, Merge to Buddha. bikeable (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. It still seems that some of the text from this article can be merged in the God in Buddhism. If the editors conversant with the topic feel that what is left is either having little relevance or is completely OR, then delete. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this appears to be OR. HGB 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
