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. No need to keep this going per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 04:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Buddhism[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Criticism articles are generally deprecated, and are often POV forks. In this case 90% of the article has been removed, leaving a stub that implies that the only criticism of Buddhism is Nietsche's opinions. That is grossly misleading.

Attempts to restore the deleted content and then improve it have not gained consensus. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Buddhism. ––FormalDude talk 11:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG as well discussed topic in itself, that receives significant coverage in reliable sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] From the available sources, sections on criticism related to violence and warfare, and the treatment of women would seem appropriate.

References

^ John Taber (2004). A Hindu Critique of Buddhist Epistemology. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781134307333.
^ Rita M. Gross. Buddhism After Patriarchy; A Feminist History, Analysis, and Reconstruction of Buddhism. State University of New York Press. ISBN 9781438405131.
^ Bernard Faure (1994). The Rhetoric of Immediacy; A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691029634.
^ Michael K. Jerryson (2018). If You Meet the Buddha on the Road; Buddhism, Politics, and Violence. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190683566.
^ Mark Juergensmeyer; Michael Jerryson (2010). Buddhist Warfare. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195394832.
^ Brian Daizen Victoria (2006). Zen at War. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 9781461647478.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep justification is wrong. I have yet to not find a "Criticism of X" article where X is a religion. We have Criticism of Jainism, even. Oh, I don't see a criticism of Shintoism, but pretty much everything else. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SailingInABathTub and Jclemens passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but stubbify even further by removing the "Nihilism" section. Nietzsche's views on Buddhism are complex (see Buddhism in the West#In Europe) and are not adequately represented here – and as the nom says, the retaining of this single section in an otherwise empty article gives severely undue emphasis to a minority opinion. However, I oppose deletion because the article title is a very likely search term, and readers looking for information on this topic are better served by a stub (with a list of links for further reading) than by a "This page does not exist" notice. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Obviously passes WP:GNG. The nominator hasn't demonstrated a reasonable need to delete the article. It certainly is a noteworthy subject. (the content of the article does not determine the notability of an article, see WP:ARTN; the subject is of course notable). --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 20:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are issues with the content of the article, but the concept of the article itself is notable and does have sources that show notability per WP:GNG. Deletion is not an alternative to cleanup, and while yes the article needs work (an understatement), it is not at WP:TNT levels of criticality. The nom did make a comment that "Criticism of X" articles are generally depreciated, and while there is some truth to the fact that Criticism articles should generally be avoided, WP:CRITS specifically points out that major worldview concepts like religions are a general exception to that, which is further explained in Wikipedia:Criticism#Philosophy, religion, or politics. - Aoidh (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2022 (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.