Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 February 8

8 February 2015

Buddhist humanism – Endorse, evenly balance for and against but the argument that this is a POV fork of the obviously similar Humanistic Buddhism carries it. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC) – Guy (Help!) 23:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Buddhist humanism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This article was speedily deleted as G11. The deleting admin agreed that it seemed promotional, although he had seen worse, but felt that it would be better to get a full discussion including uninvolved editors. So he suggested restoring it and immediately nominating it for AfD.(Discussion here) That was fine with me. But the nom objected and said that it should go through DRV. So here I am. I think we should follow the admin’s advice and take it to AfD, for two reasons: I think the original author's intent was to show that Buddhism and Humanism are broadly compatible. In that I think it was fairly successful. The nom disagrees and contends that it was narrowly promotional of Soka Gakkai, a Japanese new religion. Since there is a disagreement here, I would like to get the opinions of uninvolved editors. One of the admin’s concerns was that some of the statements in the article were unsourced. But immediately before the article was nominated for speedy deletion, a number of sources were removed from the article. It’s unclear whether the admin was aware of that. To give the article a fair chance, I would like to restore those sources before it goes to AfD. On the day before the article was deleted, another editor and myself were working to expand the references from bare URLs to full citations. We were about half finished. But I when I came back the next day I was surprised to see that the article had vanished. I would like to get it back so I can finish expanding the references and restore the recently deleted sources. Then I have no objection to taking it to AfD. I think with the references restored and the bare URLs expanded to full citations, the editors at AfD will have a better chance of understanding what the article was about and deciding whether or not it was promotional. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I have no particular interest in the content dispute concerning this article, but as the deleting admin, I indicated that I was prepared to restore and immediately AFD (which could address the tone and content issues). My view remains that that would be the most practical solution. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Margin1522 asserts that there was a content dispute because I deleted sources that had nothing to do with the topic insofar as they were not related to the Soka Gakkai use of the generic term “Buddhist humanism”. All that was left were primary sources published by the Soka Gakkai. The article was no more than a promotional screed. The article was originally created as a content fork from Humanistic Buddhism, and the Talk page of that article must be read to grasp the scenario. For example, the editor that created the article, an SPA that has been inactive since November 2014, didn’t even respond to the following query after he created the article. I have to admit my first reaction was that the pages should be merged - but I think I can see that they are different in scope. If I understood the difference better I would add a hatnote to each article. Could you perhaps explain for a layman the difference? [1] And since it seems that Jim feels somewhat put on the spot in regard to the assertion of a content dispute, let me just post his first comment on Margin1522’s Talk page. The article was nominated for deletion by another editor and I concurred. It seemed to me, for example, that The Buddha's humanistic teachings marked a historical shift from all doctrines which viewed humanity as dependant on or influenced by the external power of gods, doctrines which could not free people from their sufferings and from injustice experienced in daily life. is an unsourced claim singling out a particular point of view; similarly Buddhist humanism started with overcoming hardships and barriers through great efforts to introduce equality to Buddha’s society based on discrimination is an unsourced promotional claim. I've seen worse, but since there is apparently a content dispute too, would it be better to restore as a draft for now? [2] That's exactly what they are, unsourced promotional claims. I opposed the restoration to draft space and Margin1522 refused to have the article userified as a draft in his user space. Jim was correct in concurring with the request for speedy deletion, and I would like to forego further waste of time and effort on the article which was nothing but and advertisement and does not meet WP:N. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Restore to draft space and use MfD if desired. I am unwilling to use G11 for the description of a philosophy in the manner of this article. It needs to be discussed and if possible improved, and here is not the place for it. There is no difference between retiring to draft space and a user space draft, except that draft space is now the customary and proper place for these. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC) There aren't sources supporting the topic as a philosophy, but a misappropriation of a generic title by a New religious movement that is also a content fork from a preexisting school of though that is something that could be called a "philosophy" in the sense you use it, and one that developed in an actual school of Buddhism in the CHinese language, as described at the Humanistic Buddhism article. The only secondary source that discusses the topic, and was not even used in the deleted article, seems to be this book, but the author has been a Soka Gakkai adherent, so its close to being a primary source. Despite this focus on Ikeda...I changed the title...One reason was...A second was to suggest the power of the narrator's experience in encountering Ikeda's Buddhist Humanism at a time of personal crisis and disturbing social change. And this is from the opening sentence of the description by the publisher This engaging, deeply personal book, illuminating the search for meaning in today’s world, offers a rare insider’s look at Soka Gakkai Buddhism, one of Japan’s most influential and controversial religious movements...[3] So it is an insider's account published by an academic press. Insofar as it is an insiders account, it is a primary source, and his addressing of "Ikeda's Buddhist Humanis" in 2006 has received almost no attention in the secondary literature. There is this mention, for example[4].--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:13, 10:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Overturn, I don't feel it falls within the spirit of G11 (despite, I suppose, falling within the letter). It can be moved to draft space as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Care to elaborate on the distinction between "spirit" and "letter"? There are only primary sources, and the content was promotional. I don't understand why Margin1522 refused to simply allow the article to be placed as a draft in his user space, but I don't feel that there is much of a need to spend much more energy defending the speedy delete decision, as most of the relevant points have been addressed. I'll just post one more quote, this one from the last source given above[5], which includes a one-sentence mention (my bolding) [Soka Gakkai] has self-consciously adopted an ethos of global liberal pluralism that Richard Hughes Seager has referred to as "Buddhist humanism". That is about the extent of it. It is described as an "ethos", not a philosophy, and Seager's characterization of it is attributed, not stated as fact. Note that the two authors of that book are academicsAssociate Professor R. Michael Feener and Juliana Finucane. There is no "there", there, as the saying goes.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion I oppose the recreation of the formally rejected article on Buddhist Humanism. The article on Humanistic Buddhism already exists. The proposed article lacks notability and seems promotional. In my books Wikipedia is no glossary of a religious fringe movement. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Restore with probable AfD or Move to draft with possible MfD; either is fine. But while the page would need a significant copyedit to be written in a neutral, encyclopaedic style, it's not fundamentally promotional, and notability is a matter for AfD to decide. It has the problem of being written in a kind of "in-universe" style, sure. But that's an editing problem, not a deletion problem. WilyD 02:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC) A "significant copyedit"? Have you read this thread in its entirety? I posted the deleting admins reference to a promotional claim, and have indicated that there were (and are) absolutely no secondary sourceson the purported topic of the deleted article. The article was created as a content fork to serve as a vehicle for outreach by an SPA advocate of the NRM at issue. The "in-universe" characterization would be more relevant if the article had used secondary sources in a manner to emphasize its own POV, but there were no relevant secondary sources. The secondary sources that were used related to either Buddhism or humanism and had been misappropriated in a SYNTH manner in an attempt to surreptitiously meet the notability requirements for "Buddhist humanism". The only sources on "Buddhist humanism" were primary sources.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, I have, and I've seen a lot of badgering, reasons one might argue for deletion at AfD, and zero reasons why this article would qualify for speedy deletion. If one reads the article, they can see it doesn't require a fundamental rewrite. Similarly, they can see it's not about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event. They'll also find none of the other speedy deletion criteria apply. So, it should not have been speedily deleted. More complicated arguments for deletion could be considered at AfD, but are irrelevant here. WilyD 00:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC) I beg to differ. The article does would require a fundamental rewrite, and one that includes legitimate secondary sources. As it appears you are giving short shrift to the relevant policy, I'll quote in full Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: An article which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. See Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION for the policy on this. What is being promoted is clearly a point of view about a subject that only exists because the organization that says it exists does so. Your statement that one "might" argue for deletion on the basis of such reasons at AfD is incomprehensible, as it appears to belittle the degree to which the article is absolutely not in compliance with Wikipedia policy and should have never been created in the first place, which indicates another flaw in process, as it is utterly non-notable and was obviously created as a content fork by an obvious SPA, to boot. In case anyone missed this about prohibited promotion ob Wikipedia... Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC) The assertion that the article would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopaedic is false. So completely false that making it wholly discredits anyone who makes it as either unfamiliar with the article at hand, or unfamiliar with encyclopaedia writing in general, such that nothing they assert can be reasonably entertained, as they've demonstrated they're so unfamiliar with what's going on they can't offer any informed analysis. If the sources presented in the article don't rise to the standard of WP:N, and a thorough follow-up search reveals insufficient additional sources, an AfD would probably conclude the article should be deleted (though redirection and/or merger are also obvious possible outcomes). If the subject does meet WP:N, then the article requires some copyediting, though there's a lot of worthwhile text you'd want to keep to use in the rewrite. But, an in-depth evaluation of, and search for, sources is what AfD is for, and CSD is not for. So, here we are. WilyD 10:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC) You've misconstrued my statement about "requiring a fundamental rewrite", but I've revised the verb. The deleting admin has pointed to both unsourced and unsourced promotional statements. Those are obviously not written in an encyclopedic manner. The sources in the article are mostly self-published, and therefore don't meet WP:RS per WP:SELFPUB, which states Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim the article is not based primarily on such sources. , so WP:N would seem not to be the primary issue. The article was created as a content fork because the large number of primary sources being used would not have been accepted by those editing the Humanistic Buddhism article. At any rate, if the speedy was procedurally incorrect, then let's get on with the next step. It seems to me like an unnecessary bureaucratic process, though. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Endorse - we already have an article on Humanistic Buddhism, and I'm not convinced we need this separate article. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Overturn G11, list at AfD. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions. Clearly, since we have people arguing to restore the article, it was not uncontroversial. It should be almost automatic that a contested speedy results in an AfD listing. I took a very brief look at the deleted article; at first glance, it appears to be well written and well referenced. It's not obvious to me that it wouldn't survive AfD. One possible outcome of AfD would be to move to draft space, but that's a decision best made at AfD, not here. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Overturn and list at AfD or Move to draft - As the deleting admin is willing to restore and list at AfD, that seems like a perfectly reasonable solution. I would also be fine with moving the article to draft per DGG. It seems a shame that non-involved non-admin editors can't comment on content, since it's deleted. Without that, I don't see how we can really validate for ourselves—and therefore make reasonable policy based arguments on content—the claims of content forking or lack of (or removal of) RS sources, or any other content issues. What is clear however, is that G11 speedy is for non-controversial deletions, and as of now, this obviously isn't. It really should have gone to AfD, as several editors have suggested. - Becksguy (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC) References
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.