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. Any editor willing to work on it is free to contact me to discuss userfication.--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist polemics[edit]

Buddhist polemics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page is an essay written completely (ironically) as an argument against Buddhist polemics as an apologetic statement in support of buddhism. My own personal (i.e. Christian) bias aside, the content is vastly inappropriate for Wikipedia and there's no precedence for an article like it for other religions and beliefs (such as for Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc etc). If the article is to be kept, it should conform to Wikipedia's standards, but if this cannot be radically adjusted to conform to the references and obtain a neutral point of view, the article should be removed. There have been cleanup tags (for point of view and references) for over 6 months now, with no apparent intention or action to address the matter. linca^linca 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vast NPOV issues, and a complete rewrite is nearly impossible. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve as necessary. How is a rewrite "impossible"? Cleduc 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It would be "impossible" per se, to improve the article as it is. If anybody familiar with the subject matter can provide at least two or three third party reliable sources on the topic, write at least a stub article that doesn't use any of the existing content (as it's completely unusable in its present form) then the article is deserving of being removed as it's a one-sided essay on what's wrong with Buddhist polemics, which is not the porpose of Wikipedia. There are simply too many problems prevalent in the page in its present form to make reliable use of any of it, especially considering its lack of references (which is common across the board in the Buddhism articles, I must say). --linca^linca 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve (necessary). Klimov 16:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsalvageable POV fork with unclear and meandering subject matter. < eleland // talkedits > 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: What a neat idea. Let's let this develop per WP:IGNORE and see if it's worthwhile; if not, we can always delete it later. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: This article hasn't been touched much in almost six months, in which time it has had cleanup tags on it. It's time to go. It's been ignored enough. --linca^linca 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary rambling and dangerously close to WP:OR. Discussion of the differences between e.g. Mahayana and Therevada can easily be included in Buddhism or related articles without turning it into a bizarre he-said-she-said debate. bikeable (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete or userfy. This article is a hold-over from an earlier era of Wikipedia ... a time when anything seemed possible. It's an essay by an editor who is no longer active. It doesn't really fit in with what Wikipedia is trying to do these days.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nat Krause. I was unsure if this article should be blanked and left as a stub or deleted altogether. I decided it should be deleted. Wikipedia should discuss the differences between the Mahayana and Theravada and evaluate the polemical claims on both sides. There are many accusations leveled against the "Hinayana" across wikipedia, and these accusations should be addressed. However as bikeable has indicated, this can be done on a case-by-case basis. The article currently is just wikipedians' opinions. See also Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna. Arrow740 04:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nat Krause makes a really good point above. I actually enjoy this essay, but it certainly doesn't fit with what the rest of the encyclopedia has become. I wonder if there is another wiki to trans wiki it to? There's no question this is an essay, but it is a good essay. I didn't have the heart to afd it myself, but in it's current form it has to go. A woeful delete. daveh4h 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way. This essay is the only place where the misleading "Theravada monks are selfish" nonsense is addressed. However, it is still an essay. Arrow740 05:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I neglected to mention that this article, in addition to its essay substrate, has been the subject of influxes of material, mostly from Theravada, which is where the "Theravada criticised and explained" section comes from.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 11:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The current content largely falls under OR, and most of the factual material is already covered in other articles. --Clay Collier 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete as a possibly interesting essay, but not everything of possible interest ought to be in Wikipedia. Orbst 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs to be sourced, but a summary of the theological controversies in the evelopment of he religion would seem altogether appropriate. DGG (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay, and will almost certainly remain unsourced if kept. Note the meaning of "theological." Arrow740 03:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete OR/essay. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only the content falls under OR, it is highly POV and has no place on Wikipedia 216.99.54.18 00:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this vote is valid: anonymous users can't vote.Greetings, Sacca 08:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's an ok article, just needs some sources, and these can be found. So keep it and the sources will appear. many articles in the Buddhism section only now are starting to receive their share of sources, it takes a while. Greetings, Sacca 08:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If what you say is true, then it may be salvaged, but the fact is, there is nothing here that's referencable; it's major issues are that of point of view: Wikipedia (and any Encyclopedia for that matter) needs to provide a neutral point of view, which presently this is one of the most POV and bias skewed articles I've ever seen, and I casually browse thousands of articles (and edit only a small amount of them). I don't believe this article can be salvaged, being why I listed it for delation, because there's nothing in the article that can be kept. The article may as well say "I don't like people who bag out Buddhism because they're stupid and don't know what they're talking about because Buddhism is real and I don't care what you say". This is a simplification of the article, but it's generally what the article says. It doesn't provide any information in support of why the polemics exist; noted polemics; factual evidence against common polemic arguments. These are encyclopedic content, though not included. Deprecating polemics without a valid explanation, speaking in the first person (which happens in a couple of instances) provides a great deal of imbalance. --linca^linca 08:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A good guide as to how this article should be presented can be seen here. This is the article for Christian apologetics, which is in support of a point of view based argument, however here the subject matter is handles with consistency and balance. It doesn't simply highlight all the positives and gives due course to the flaws therein, which needs to be mirrored in an article like this, though taken more tenderly; a topic about positivity is easy to remain level, but one that focuses on the negative aspects is harder to remain cool. I understand this, but the key to handling the matter is restraint and unfortunately, restraint hasn't been applied in the article at all and simply denounces any viability to claims by polemics. It also is written in such a way (in the lead paragraph, no less) that the polemics hide the truth. I need to address that this indicates that the buddhist truth is the absolute truth, which is not a point of view that can be even conjectured on Wikipedia. And that's just mere words into the article. --linca^linca 08:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag as needing rewrite ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. From what I can tell, this article seems to exemplify the topic. (I.e., it is a piece of Buddhist polemics.) The main grounds for deletion are the lack of neutrality and, perhaps to a lesser extent, unverifiable original research (i.e., an essay). If need be, the relevant Project and Talk pages can be notified of the deletion, so that any useful (?) content can be gleaned. HG | Talk 08:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This isn't a polemic essay, it's an apologia. But nonetheless... --linca^linca 10:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Not to mention this article doesn't cite a single source.Vice regent 20:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.