Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papayana

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 as apparent hoax. DS 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Papayana

• No solid evidence presented for the significant presence of the term "papayana" within Buddhism; also, the article smacks of intentional bias against Mahayana TonyMPNS 11:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. -- Seed 2.0 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no references are listed in the article and none have been forthcoming on the talk page. The article tends toward a POV presentation.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony that this article should be deleted. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there are no references or citations for "papayana" in any dictionaries of Pali, though it may occur as a hapax legomen or a nonce word in some late, as yet uncited, Pali work. Moreover, not only is the word seemingly quite spurious, but I suspect that this article was created as a veiled attack against Mahayana by certain disgruntled editors who have a bee in their wee bonnets about the historical Mahayana use and application of the term "hinayana".--Stephen Hodge 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Papayana"

• Very Weak Delete, as insufficiently sourced. In my opinion, the article's content is quite credible, as it describes a facet of a very real clash of Buddhist traditions and POVs. Beside sounding indeed like a Buddhist sneer, pāpayana appears here as well as in the reference provided in the talk page. Stammer 09:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Is this a joke?? The first reference above by Stammer seems to have nothing specifically Buddhist-philosophical about it - it seems rather to get a mention in the context of a woman's alluring sinuous movements (amusingly)! And the second reference does not even contain the contested term, as far as I can see. Or have I missed something?! Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 09:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:54, 14 May 2007 (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.