Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen Center of Syracuse

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 Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zen Center of Syracuse

Zen Center of Syracuse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Tagged for failure to provide any claims of notability and speedy deleted for that reason. Original creator immediately recreated the article. He claims that WikiProject Buddhism is planning on creating an article on every Buddhist temple in the world. They ought to start by proving how this center is more notable than a run-of-the mill church. Corvus cornixtalk 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

* delete no evidence of notability presented - what "notability" is asserted just seems to be an attempt to get around CSD. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply Yes, the source is James Ishmael Ford in his book Zen Master Who?, which is properly referenced in the article. By oldest Zen center, the key word here is continuously, which is what the source says. (Mind meal (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
It doesn't really fit in the main Buddhism article. If you check around wikipedia you will see several Zen Centers and Buddhist temples, each with their own page. Golgofrinchian (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

* delete The sources I can find indicate the actual centre is not nearly as old as the article claims. The current centre seems to be merely the lastest in a long line used by a small group of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep criterion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Finally should every one on this list be deleted also?List of Buddhist temples Golgofrinchian (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. Being the admin that originally speedied this for failure at WP:A7, I feel that it still deserves deletion (though AfD is the right way to go - probably doesn't fail A7 now). TalkIslander 01:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed to Weak Keep. When nominated for AfD, and when I !voted delete above, this article was definitely delete-worthy. It's now been brought up a few notches, and although I'm still not 100% convinced of it's notability, there are many hundreds of articles less notable that are in no danger of being deleted, so keep. Just. TalkIslander 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • by deleting this article you must also delete every temple/center listed on the List of Buddhist temples many of which probably have little or no more notability over this center. Is this a form of religious persecution? Of course not that would be ridiculous Golgofrinchian (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have an accusation to make, make it - nobody likes mealy-mouthed comments and they make the person making them look weak. If you have something to say, have the strength of your convictions and say it - otherwise don't. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No, not everything has to be deleted because one thing is. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Its not religious persecution at all, its applying the same rules for notability to Zen centres as to other categories which don't have a separate article for every example (books, albums, tv shows, etc. etc.) So far the only claim to notability seems to be the centre's age, which is both in doubt (external sources indicate the centre is much newer, though founded by the same group as earlier closed centres) and significantly younger than other examples. --BrucePodger (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok I am relatively new to this editing thing. It is a learning process. Instead of lifting a person up that has an obvious desire to do good work here on wikipedia, the general feeling I get is one of obtuse indifference. This article has no less merit than any of the hundreds listed on the List of Buddhist temples. This is not a Christian/Muslim/Judaism or any one of those faiths place. Being there are very few Buddhist admins I do not feel represented in my plight to save an article. All I have is reference to other articles and I get the smart ass WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment. This is supposed to be part of a much larger project and I am not being represented. That is how I feel.Golgofrinchian (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you feel I'm being a smart arse, not my intent. The 'othersuffexists' and other similar pages exist to document standard policies and guidelines (if you read it you'll see its completely neutral and has no anti-buddist bias), inserting the link is simply the best way of explaining those policies without having to type it all out longhand every time and also emphasises that they're standard policies, not a biased opinion. As it happens my original insertion of this into this page was a direct cut and paste of a response I recieved myself once. --BrucePodger (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Bruce it was not a total comment directed at you. I am just very frustrated and trying to answer all of the uphill battles I am facing by trying to work on articles. This has not been the first article I have written to only have it speedy 30 seconds later. Being I am not an admin I have 0 idea what goes on behind the scenes and from my viewpoint I think you could understand my frustration. I am not adding any advertisements or blatantly flamebait material but I think I am treated as such sometimes. I have been playing around editing here for over 4 years but not until recently have I been actually writing any articles. Of the 9 that I have written I have had to fight for five of them very hard. If that is to be expected then so-be-it. Once again I dont mean to be difficult I was just answering the comment that I should really say what I feel.Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. A suggestion for you. I think its unlikely you'll get every Zen centre accepted as sufficiently notable for their own article. What seems more likely to suceed is a page with basic details of all centres (perhaps done in a similar style to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens), with only those likely to be accepted as notable by the wider wikipedia community having their own page. This could also provide a useful framework where a short piece on a centre could be developed without likely deletion before being moved to a separate article once it aquires sufficient length and reasons for notability. This is perhaps a plan to discuss with the WikiProject Buddhism --BrucePodger (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Bruce, I did that article already a few weeks ago: Zen Center. I can see how it would look like a church sort of place but in Buddhism they are something else. It is difficult to ascertain the differences and being I have never been to a Jewish Temple or Muslim one I cannot speak to the differences. However, if you check on the list I linked youll see a huge variety of ones that also have their own wiki page that I have had nothing to do with. I do appreciate the kind suggestion though thank you. Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Its funny because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is included in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so I have no idea why that's always quoted. But I do think that there's a valid argument to be made that this afd suffers from WP:BIAS. A comparable church or synagouge of church would probably fare a lot better. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I resent your accusation and want to point you to my nomination, which specifically says that this is no more notable than a run-of-the mill church. Corvus cornixtalk 03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Relax! I wasn't refering to your nomination. I was refering to the way the concensus was forming in this discussion. Notice I said "would probably fare a lot better." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Its being quoted here because its being used as a keep reason by the article's author, I'm posting the link precisely as a way to point out its considered an argument to avoid. I actually think a church or synagouge would have a harder time of it; I think there are more of those, so notability becomes more difficult to establish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has been reworked and notability has been established. (Mind meal (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
  • Keep in recognition of the excellent WP:HEY by Mind meal. Author, note well what was done to save this article, and apply those lessons in future editing. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The reworked article goes someone towards answering my concerns about its actual age (it does at least mention relocation. I'm still unsure if this really counts as being the same centre or just a different centre with the same founders though). The involvement of the first female Rinzai adds a second reason for notability though.
  • Delete: The actual age isn't so very impressive, really. 1972 was the year that all of those Alan Watts books touting Zen were out, so the impressive thing here is merely that this one has kept a single name going (not a single center). There is no indication that this center has achieved notoriety except within the rarefied air of "Zen centers in the US." I'd like to see something that this center has done that will make outsiders refer to it. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Gotta agree. I don't see how being 36 years old makes something notable just on the basis of that. Corvus cornixtalk 18:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply Tell me what age even has to do with notability, anyway? Notability is established by sources, not by being "special." Might I refer Utgard Loki and Corvus cornix to WP:N, perhaps? (i.e. "There is no indication that this center has achieved notoriety except within the rarefied air of 'Zen centers in the US.'") I think you meant notability, by the way, as notoriety is negative attention. Also, there does seem to be at least a small pattern to the the kinds of articles nominated for deletion by Corvus Cornix, i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Bowman. Please see the very first version, and decide whether or not it deserved AFD? (Mind meal (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
  • Keep. A run-of-the-mill church could not claim to be custodians of a potentially historic building. The centre's letter to the editor seems to have a claim to notability that could be researched. Canuckle (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point the home is an historical landmark that the center won 2 awards for their restoration. I will have to work this into the article somehow.Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply Zen Buddhism did not really come to America until the late 60's. Its recent in American history and just a blink in Earths history, but to people interested in Western Zen Buddhism that is a very long time. Even tough Buddhism is 2500 years old (older if your a practicioner), Western Zen (mostly due to WWII) is very new.Golgofrinchian (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is determined by the fairly objective measure of coverage in independent sources, not by subjective opinions about what is or isn't important. With five decent sources (and a letter to the editor, but I'll let that slide), I'd say the article passes this criterion. If WikiProject Buddhism can write articles of this quality (as opposed to mere directory-style listings) on other temples, then let them. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like quite a reasonable article. No issues with WP:N. WP:N does not require extraordinary claims (oldest/biggest/fattest), it just requires coverage in suitable sources. The article seems to be part of an effort to create complete coverage of Zen/Buddhism, an effort that should be applauded, and which is well within our ambitions (see WP:5P. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I notice 'one of the oldest continuously-running Zen centers' and the fact that there are newspaper references. It is disappointing that the writers of the article had to rely so much on the previous history of the building where the center was located to establish importance; I'd rather know about its significance within American Buddhism. Still, there are enough references that I believe the article could be improved. If nothing changes in six months I think another AfD might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 11 March 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.