Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhisamayalankara, Chapter One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 all per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abhisamayalankara, Chapter One

Abhisamayalankara, Chapter One (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
Abhisamayalankara, Chapter Two (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Abhisamayalankara, Chapter Three (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm nominating this page and two others just like it. Wikipedia is not a place to recreate content like this. The pages aren't very encyclopedic and don't really contain any information aside from what basically looks like chapter headers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wikisource if it would be useful over there otherwise delete. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy, without redirection, to a subpage for User:Dawud for the time being. This appears to be a work in progress. Abhisamayalankara seems to be a religious scripture of some importance. Precedent suggests that at least some individual chapters or passages of religious works can support articles. This seems to be a work in progress that may not be ready for mainspace in its present form. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As this information is respectively distributed to Wikipedia in a manner that reflects both zeal and aspiration for this book to be known, obviously deleting the information would be a barbaric course of action in consideration to the amount of time the user has contributed to this information, and it is regardlessly valuable content. In resolution to the present circumstances, I advise that these chapter articles are moved over to Wikibooks: this action will ensure that the information is respectively treated as a book--which it blatantly is--and allowed to survive, which will ultimately be the intention of its distributor, and thus a perfectly appropriate resolution to the situation. Deleting information at random will not look good for this relatively pathetic society, and therefore such actions should not be taken unless ultimately justified. User:Exiled Ambition 5 February 2008 (EST)
    As I have stated in my previous comment, the most rational course of action in these circumstances is to create articles for these book chapters at Wikibooks.org. Merging vital information into one summarized whole is not appropriate to a valued piece of literature--nor should it be for any information--and therefore these chapters are not to ultimately be harmed by any means, but distributed at Wikibooks, its rightful place for future distribution. User:Exiled Ambition 6 February 2008 (EST)
  • It's me, Dawud--the main author of the Abhisamayalankara chapter articles (so far). I'm part of a group which is studying this text over the next year and a half. We've just started this January. It's obviously very complex. For me, editing these things is a good way to make sure how much of it I understand. Anyway, I hope you can give me some more time to get them into shape. It takes time to figure out what each of the seventy topics actually means (the amount of Buddhist jargon is intimidating even to dharma students), look up all the terms in Sanskrit and Tibetan, and so on. If the basic objection is that all of these ought to be subsumed under the main Abhisamayalankara article, I suggest that this approach would make the main article unwieldy. Bear in mind that the chapter articles will likely only be seen by people proceding from the main article, who are somehow motivated to know more about this convoluted but important text.Dawud (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: This isn't the place to post all of your research. Each chapter should only have a page if there's so much information that it needs to be separated from the main page. Don't post the translations; rather, provide decent summaries of the sections, and more importantly, use secondary sources to back up your claims. I see no information in any of the three chapters that shouldn't exist solely on the main page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    This isn't research, and these are only the titles of the subheadings. There would have been more information if I hadn't had to fight off you guys the day after I started putting this together. This was just the framework. Dawud (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
So, what's going on with this? When will the issue be decided, and on what basis? (Voting on this page?) I suggest postponing the whole discussion for a month, giving me a chance to fill these in.
HelloAnyong asked about sources. These are listed in the main Abhisamayalankara article, which I hope everyone is aware of. One of them (Conze) links to a translation of the text itself, in case anyone wants to see what we're dealing with here.
Remember that this text is one of about a dozen (for the Gelugpas, one of five) of the most important philosophical / doctrinal writings studied by Tibetan lamas. I would compare it to Kant's writings in terms of both difficulty and influence.Dawud (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Apparently, according to HelloAnnyong, this was to have been decided by an administrator within several days. Now that several days have gone by, is there any sign of this happening? I am eager to know whether to work on these any further. Dawud (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: As of Valentines Day (2008), I have found the Tibetan names for everything (from Thrangu Rinpoche's commentary) and am waiting for the Sanskrit. In other words, the names of each topic and subtopic will be in Sanskrit and Tibetan, followed by all the published translations. (I am also waiting for those of Brunholz and Sparham.) Then--soon, I promise--there will be descriptions or elaborations based on these various published works, including further subdivisions as well as links to the Prajnaparamitasutras on which the text ostensibly comments. At that point I think everyone will agree that the articles are admissible. 218.167.162.98 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all - while the main work is certainly notable, I can't see the notability for individual chapters. - fchd (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I did this mainly to keep the main article short. Isn't that the done thing? Are you asking for less information / detail? (In which case we should reset the main Wikipedia page to rank each Wikipedia language according to how small they have succeeded in editing themselves down to!) Or just one verrrryyyyy long main article? 218.167.170.189 (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"I did this mainly to keep the main article short. Isn't that the done thing?" Nah. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
From WP:Article size: "One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed." 218.167.172.98 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (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.