Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Understanding Heaven and Hell

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. Mr.Z-man 05:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Understanding Heaven and Hell

Understanding Heaven and Hell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No English references. This was a speedy, but after talking with the author, I think the AfD route is a better choice for this. Rocket000 07:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Undecided as nominator. (Even if my vote changes to keep, I won't withdraw because it was speedy before.) Rocket000 10:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral The subject seems eminently encyclopedic, but I can't find no verifiable sources. I tried to read the book in original with my non-existent Chinese skills but it made no sense whatsoever to me. I think someone more knowledgeable on the subject and/or the language should give his or her opinion in this discussion. --Victor falk 11:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • comment. I can't help but maybe they could. Already notified them.--Lenticel (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP- I am pleading with all readers and wiki-fans on the grounds that without an ENGLISH translation or website does not mean this Book is non-existent, a fundamental flaw perhaps in the Wiki-rules. I hope to see Wikipedia around in 2050 CE, care to think how many articles then will be in Chinese or originated in Chinese, meaning perhaps Wiki should be flexible about this. There are more than thirty books of similar nature that I hope with time to introduce to the English-reading Wiki-readers, help me on this....ACHKC 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I really wish I could help you. If only the Google translator work better.. I don't know if you are aware, but there is a Chinese Wikipedia. If you can find a good article on this subject there, it will definitely help. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find anything (or on other language Wikipedias). I'll keep looking though, because honestly, I don't know where to go with this. Rocket000 07:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Not the same in Chinese Wikipedia, the benchmark and the reach quite different, thanks.ACHKC 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have looked at both the article and the source cited, and while no expert on Taoism, make the following observations: 1. the article is extremely poorly written. For example, "issued by the current divine sovereign" makes no sense at all. 2. the "book" is in the form of a novel, with all the traditional chapter headers, structures, and styles of a novel. 3. the "book" is not written in Han-dynasty classical Chinese. It is certainly a much more modern work - perhaps a contemporary work, as seen from the following sentence in the epilogue: "堪以慰我天皇在天之靈，迫望印刷百餘萬卷，公諸全球，以勸五族同人，並勸歐、美、各國": "To please my Heavenly Emperor's spirit in heaven [note: usually used to refer to the deceased rather than a deity], I hope to print more than a million copies, present it to the world [a modern term], to entreat colleagues of the five ethnicities [a term originating from the Republic of China era], and also to entreat upon the nations of Europe and America." I believe that the article should be deleted because: (1) it cites no sources for all of its claims about the book, e.g. the "controversy"; (2) no sources are cited to show its notability; (3) many of the claims made are plainly false, or seem to be written from an in-world perspective of the novel. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
that was helpful, thank you; would you care to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Feast of Immortal Peaches, as it seems to have much the same problems?--Victor falk 11:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment makes sense if you also read Guan Shengdi which asserts a knowledge of recent changes in the celestial court.KTo288 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- PalaceGuard008's reading of Chinese is quite mono-dimensional in this: ..在天之靈, the 靈 is a word not only refering ...to the deceased rather than a deity it can also mean spiritual or transcendental. Many different ways to approach it really, reading the base text, some of the expressions, the message, what it is saying. Putting off the book based on one-take on a sentence is really saying something about the prejudices of PalaceGuard008.ACHKC 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ACHKC, the crux of the problem is that you haven't provided with any information that establishes (1) exactly when this book was written, (2) whether it has been published, and the surrounding circumstances, and (3) how notable it is. To keep the article, you will need to (1) detail exactly who physically "penned" the book, (2) whether, when and where it was published, and (3) at least one external academic source or a couple of non-academic independent sources that confirm at least some of the claims being made about this book in the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per PalaceGuard and lack of sources. --RaiderAspect 12:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Tending to delete, same arguements as I'm making for "Feast of the Immortal Peaches" this class of book claimed to be written in a state of divine inspiration cannot be verified or sourced this side of heaven, however what can be verified and sourced is real world impact by its followers and adherents, if ACHKC can demonstrate that it has a substantial following, that it has maybe two or three very famous adherents, or that the controversy he/she claims has had a significant impact on religious practise etc than maybe I could be convinced enough to make mine a keep vote. KTo288 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I studied Daoism in University and have never heard of this book. In addition, I did a few searches for anything with the title , and found nothing in English. I got a few hits in Chinese. Nevertheless, sources should be provided here, and there are simply some things that don't make sense in this article. I wasn't aware that there was still a Jade Emperor, who has been reigning since 1924, no less. Add some sources, or else delete this article.Zeus1234 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Please could Zeus1234 let us know the terms of reference of Daoism you studied- syllabus, presumably based on books written by western scholars and perhaps viewing daoism as a sect or semi-religion? No attack on that course you took but quite dubious about what you came away knowing. Here is my view, taoism is not an organized religion like Roman Catholic Church, thus it can not be compared as such, meaning using similar establishment-yardstick to quantify its success(adherents) and measure its tenets(practicable, understandable etc. like a book from the new testament, say) would be imposing different sets of benchmark. Your points about sources per Rocket & Wiki-editor duly taken.ACHKC 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I thank comments eitherway on this, but I noted amidst the delete-voters they might be voting against it as a part critique of the book, or passages they partly read. The overall message about this book, as it was intended, could be overlooked. Notability of this can be subject to more discussion I am sure. ACHKC 03:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: ACHKC, you seem to have voted about 3 times in this poll so far. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as this and the other articles started by this user seem to be well-written nonsense. Perspicacite 08:29, 12 October 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.