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. After discounting the comments not based on Wikipedia deletion policy, there seems to be a rough consensus to delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Fazhengnian[edit]

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

Non-notable. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While obviously this is currently just (mis)using primary sources, including from Chinese government propaganda websites and Falun Gong websites, that itself is not grounds for deletion, because there is the possibility that it could be rewritten with good sources. However, through a quick check through two of the most authoritative books on FG practice and teachings (David Ownby's Falun Gong and the Future of China and Penny's the Religion of Falun Gong), I can't find reference to this; it thus seems to fail the standard for notability, and seems it would be impossible to edit the article in order to have it meet content standards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable & original research.--Shujen Chang (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there're numerous sources from FLG's website. Beside, it's also mention in an edu site and a Chinese gov site. The corresponding article on zhwiki was nominated for deletion; the result was "speedy keep".--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) FLG websites and Chinese government websites don't particularly contribute to notability. 2) The decision on zhwiki has no bearing on the proceedings here. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese government websites and falungong websites are primary sources and cannot be regarded as independent on this topic. Wikipedia's policy on primary sources is very clear that articles need to be based on reliable, published secondary and tertiary sources. "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The entire page runs afoul of this policy.—Zujine|talk 16:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Having a lot reliable sources, I do not know why is non-notable & original research.乌拉跨氪 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources cited.—Zujine|talk 16:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiwind.com is clearly not a "Chinese government website".--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is. It's run by an organisation that reliable sources have identified as being tied to the Chinese government, specifically the 6-10 Office. Also, there was an RS discussion about it, in which it was found to be unreliable.—Zujine|talk 19:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a book, in Chinese though. And "发正念" has lots of result in google books too.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...And more of those are unrelated to falungong, or if they are related, they mention the term only in passing (for example, as part of a list of terms censored in China). Still not enough to base an article on.—Zujine|talk 19:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Shujenchang and TSTF. Page presents serious problems complying with with WP:N, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SYNTH. There do not appear to be enough (or any) reliable, secondary sources available to establish notability of the topic, or even to describe what it is. Is it a form of prayer? a religious ritual? Even having read much of the academic literature on Falungong, it's unclear, because this topic has gained negligible attention from independent sources.—Zujine|talk 16:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We might have to consider WP:COI regarding this case.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you have a conflict of interest on this topic? How, precisely? If you suspect another editor of a conflict of interest, perhaps the best forum for that would be the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, where you could present your evidence and seek the opinion of other members in the community (of course, you would first have acquainted yourself with WP:COI). I'm not sure how such cases usually go, but if for example there was a finding that a certain editor in this discussion had a COI... well, I'm not exactly sure how it would impact the issue at hand. But perhaps it would mean that their "vote" here was not counted. (Though this is the issue: this is not actually a vote.) Either way, the question here is the notability and sources for the "Fazhengnian" FLG ritual, which remains unaddressed. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't yell. I was not suspecting anyone, just giving an advice.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then... TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: i think you may know Fazhengnian takes an important role in the theory of flg, so it's very necessary to introduce Fazhengnian. also, i should say it's ridiculous that shujenchang decribed this article as OR since many sources are taken from flg official sites which means they're acknowledged by flg. - Dr. Cravix _{♪Eternal Reminiscence} 03:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We still need quality, third party sources to show notability. And please don't make personal attacks. How did you learn about this AfD? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is one academic event devoted to its psychology effect[1]. We don't have the transcript for the event online but surely there are some academic attention. I couldn't find another reliable source on the subject, but this[2] is a repost of a Kaiwind article criticizing the practice on a gov.cn web site. at least someone in the government thinks the idea is notable--Skyfiler (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the sources in both en and zh Wikipedia are from FLG sites or anti-FLG sites run by the Chinese Communist Party. I don't know whether it meets policies of Wikipedia. --王小朋友 (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Skyfiler. And [3] [4] [5]. The article needs more sources anyway. --Makecat _Talk 03:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, not notable and unreliable sources.Righteousskills (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insignificant in its own right; discuss in the article on the group. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 11 September 2012 (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.