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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singing bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is probably a notable topic. The problem is that 99.9% of what is written in here right now oscillates between unsourced and wrong.

As I mentioned two years ago at Talk:Singing_bowl#Possible_hoax_.28November_2015.29, it is extremely dubious that such bowls existed in Tibetan/Himalayan temples before Western tourists wanted to buy them. All sources attesting to their presence in that area are holistic healing and similar nonreliable sources.

It seems probable that such bowls do exist in Japan, and possibly Korea/India, and are notable here. But the current state of the article is based purely on Tibetan stuff of dubious reliability. So that is a case of WP:V trumping WP:N, or to put it less charitably WP:TNT. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There isn't a single citation, reliable or otherwise, in the article. That alone justifies deletion. The topic does seem, however, to be of potential interest. I thus encourage someone (it won't be me) to re-work the article into something more encyclopedic. That process should start with the addition of reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is obviously notable – can't we just remove all the dubious unsourced stuff and cut it back to a stub? There are plenty of articles on the subject on other language Wikipedias – these may assist then in developing the stub into something valid and properly referenced. --Deskford (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If you can, I will change to keep. But I have no knowledge of any Asian language, and what little sources I found (in English) is not encouraging, so... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The title may not help. According to this page the term 'singing bowl' is modern, and I suspect may be a Western invention. I've never come across its use in connection with Buddhist practice in Japan, where similar bowls are generally known in English as 'rin gongs', or as 'bells'. Unfortunately there seems to have been little written in English, at least as far as I can tell from Google searches. I think that reliable sources are going to require someone to search the non-English literature. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any accretion of woo to this article (and WP isn't fussy elsewhere!) is zero reason, per WP policy, to delete an article on a viable topic.

Also TNT is not policy, as we're forever reminded of when we encounter an article that really needs it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is that topic viable (i.e. notable)?

Yes, I know, I wrote in the nom that the topic is probably notable. But the operative word is probably. I think more likely than not than the topic is notable, because File:Rin_gong_at_Kiyomizu-dera,_Kyoto.JPG is probably not a staged photo-op and other circumstancial evidence (blogs etc.) I found. I believe it is more likely than not that WP:NONENG sources exist, satisfy and even exceed the notability. But all that is pure belief in the absence of having a source at hand (and yes, I did WP:BEFORE but again, English gives no RS. I just looked in French, it does not seem any better.)

Moreover, even assuming notability is met, if the current content of the article is unsalvageable, it would still be valid grounds for deletion. Not because WP:TNT is policy, but because WP:V is - we don't leave around hoax articles waiting for someone to fix them, we delete them and allow recreation of a correct version. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete It is (oddly) totally unsourced, I am not having a lot of luck finding any RS. but did find this [1].Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "totally unsourced", except briefly when a passing IP chose to delete them. It is uncited, which is different. It would obviously benefit from inlined citations, which would in turn benefit from more specific page numbers. That would improve the verifiability of content within the article.

However, as it effects demonstrating notability, the sources already included as general references (which is permitted, if discouraged) are already enough to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure they do, a couple appear to be primary sources. Without inline citations the others may not be quite as clear cut, for example does an article about a device that mimics them establish notability for what it mimics?Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Simply because I've seen them around, including at martial arts schools I've attended. The article should be rewritten if kept. —PaleoNeonate – 18:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of hits on google books, but they seem to be "in-universe". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My hands exist (I am typing with them), we do not have an article here on Wikipedia about my hands. Notability is not just about existence, but people outside of "the circle" have noticed and acknowledged it.Slatersteven (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are tibetan singing pots the same thing? [2]

-He did this thing with my Tibetan singing pot and artisan honey...

-It's a game I play called, "Do I make you horny, honey?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Possibly usable sources: [3], [4] (meh), [5] [6]. Mostly not "in-universe" anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more: [7]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phys.org source leads to [8] which cites [9] for the historic content. From the section I could consult, the first reports of singing bowls in Tibet came in the 1960s. The author explains that by Buddhist monks using them for ritual purposes and keeping them secret until the Chinese occupation forced monks into exile and some of them getting sold. While the source looks somewhat POV (as you would expect from a "handbook of instruction and use"), it is probably kinda-sorta reliable at least for those reports, so could be used (not for Wikipedia voice, but for "reports say"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC) I realize this was already in the further refs section, but the title gave me no incentive to read an obviously in-universe source. Seeing it quoted in a physics publication gave me that incentive. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religionfacts mentions Meher McArthur, Reading Buddhist Art: An Illustrated Guide to Buddhist Signs and Symbols, sadly not searchable on G-books. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book about entrainment is interesting although if I remember other than for music/rhythm etrainment itself, those who have tried to reproduce brainwave synchronization/frequency-following response hypotheses like Monroe's experiments failed, except when using wired headphones, suggesting that electromagnetics may have a more important effect than the audio, if any. There's probably no problem to report those aspects as beliefs with attribution, however... —PaleoNeonate – 04:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I have seen these at many places in the Bay Area on Haight Street (Love of Ganesha) and in Alameda (e.g. [10], [11]). Another example of where one can buy them: [12]. If there is not WP:RS in the article, then find some and add it. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is definitely something that can be fixed. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 22:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Another case of confusing article quality with notability. Take an axe to the cruft, but keep the core, improve from there. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:NOTCLEANUP. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 00:40, 26 October 2017 (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.