Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liite 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 speedy delete, copyvio from [1]. Kusma (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liite Buddhism

Liite Buddhism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Libelabous, extremely poorly written, un-sourced, with claims of anti-semitism Sethie (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Extremely well written, multiple sources -- many of which Sethie deleted.

That the article alleges Anti-Semitism is a reason to keep it, Sethie seems to be saying that he is an Anti-Semite, since he wants to delete articles that are against it.

Nothing "libelabous", whatever that means.

Sethie admits never reading the article (see Talk:Liite_Buddhism): Trust me- I didn't waste a full three minutes on this "article." Therefore he has no standing even to comment on it.

Therefore, considering that:

(1) Sethie never read the article;

(2) Antisemitism is not something to sweep under the rug;

(3) Sethie deleted 9 reliable sources and then claimed it was unsourced;

Sethie is operating outside Wikipedia policy and is making a nuisance. Castanea dentata (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete This article makes very strong claims about a religious movement, without providing a single WP:RS. I have pruned through the supposed "sources" that were listed in the external links section- most of them were blogs or did not even mention this group. Article reads like someones research paper, using first person! :) Sethie (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sethie states quite clearly that he never read the article: Talk:Liite_Buddhism. He also violated the The Reverts rule seven times!!! Ignore him or ban him. Castanea dentata (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The article is now nominated for deletion. If you want to keep the article, your time would be better-spent arguing its merits than attacking the editor who nominated it for deletion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - As I stated quite clearly above, the article as written contains a number of excellent primary sources, thorough explanations, excellent organization into sections, numerous internal wikilinks, and adds new information into Wikipedia's database.

Further, it adds to the corpus of understanding of anti-Semitism and is therefore of particular importance and relevance. By the way, I keep encountering "Edit conflict" sorry for that. Castanea dentata (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. A Google search for 'the Local Church of Witness Lee' brings up plenty of results. While that in itself might not be sufficient to establish WP:N, it's certainly strong evidence that deletion would be rash. Those involved should be given a chance to bring the article up to scratch. Sethie is right that a lengthy external links section does not equal references and also right that the article is badly written, in the first person in places. However, those issues are probably more properly ironed out at the article's talk page. Keep it, get it better written and most importantly use the external links and whatever other reliable sources exist to properly reference what the article says. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I wrote it from scratch. I wrote it originally for an e-list. It will need further revision from that format to this; but I was tired, and since it is better than other articles I have started here before, I was not concerned. I agree that it adds to information Wikipedia needs to have, which is why I put it up. We need more knowledge about such things. Sorry CD, for causing you any trouble. It looks like 3 to 1 in favor of Keeping?Wyeson 10:35, 10 January 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.