Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Buddha Online Library

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 of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 07:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Buddha Online Library

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.


Subject fails WP:WEB; article is largely an attack page Alphax τεχ 07:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as the website has an Alexa rating of just below 100,000. The website seems to be of little significance and doesn't fit with Wikipedia's guidelines. :: Colin Keigher 07:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nomination. Slendidlydelicious 08:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The website itself is non-notable, and the wikipedia article about it seems like just a pretext for a rant. Jonas Silk 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ranttackycopviocruft and per nom —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No comment. (request for vote stacking removed) Buddhism's rotted masters cannot be left alone. Geir Smith 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The article consists almost entirely of frothing attacks, and the Alexa rating around 100,000: clear delete. Geir, your opinions of the teachers named are not relevant; the question is whether ABOL meets WP:WEB, which it manifestly does not. bikeable (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • POV views of my wanting vote-stacking not receiveable; I'm on the contrary just making it known that this issue about ABOL is now adressed directly to the widely read ARBT newsgroup for judgement and will not be judged among some peer-pressuring insider-voting done by disciples of the teachers and fraudulent gurus that ABOL denounces. Know it. Geir Smith 07:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Since, with the exception of me, everyone who has spoken up on the issue so far is a regular AFD patroller, <sarcasm>it is quite obvious that there is an organized movement to bring about the destruction of the religion.</sarcasm> What you have implied is that you are organizing a meat puppet army. Please note that this is not Votes for Deletion. It is based on community consensus. Random folks from some newsgroup are not the Wikipedia community and are not in a position to pass judgement. I don't even know what you mean by insider-voting. I will also note that if you are in favor of the ABOL, you might want to consider rewriting it so that the ABOL is cast in a good light. Or just leave the discussion and article alone since you clearly don't wish to give an opinion in the context of the debate.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article consists almost entirely of terrible POV attacks, the article itself is terribly written, and most importantly of all, it fails notability criteria. --Halloween jack 13:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all the above. BTW, Geir, you're not helping this by leaving your propaganda messages in talk pages. I'd forgotten AFD patrol after a short wikiholiday, but you reminded me I had to get into it again. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Jonas Silk and others above. -999 04:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I personally find ABOL fascinating, and a valuable and interesting viewpoint, and a good resource -- However, I don't feel that its article, as it stands, fits in with WP's standards. Zero sharp 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Mind you... Delete ALL T'ebay'tan guff - would get my vote. JulianLZB87 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC) -- vote cast by 172.143.96.154, and is that IP's only edit. User JulianLZB87 has no edits. bikeable (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • False, the person says he has been on Wiki since last year at least contributing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Sutra#External_links so that claim is just false and misinformed/ Actually the person must be a regular poster to Buddhsit articles just like all of you here. So, this is a case of fellows fighting together. Not my fight. This is yours seeing the same people that post for years are now pitching up and digging into ditches to fight it out facing each other on some front. I'm on no agenda. New kid in town. I'm just passing on the info to others, that's all. Geir Smith 21:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ABOL also is just passing on information and not POV. It's just about people with courtcases pending against them in Buddhist erroneous worlds. Geir Smith 21:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not using sock-puppets. I don't know this person myself. Geir Smith 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have blocked Geir Smith (talk · contribs) for repeated disruption of this process, attacking editors and spreading misinformation. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:27, 21 April 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.