Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentient being (Buddhism)

:{{la|Sentient being (Buddhism)}} ([{{fullurl:Sentient being (Buddhism)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentient being (Buddhism)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

What could have been an article about a legitimate Buddhist topic is instead a mishmash of hyperbole and long quotes. Reads more like a religious tract than an encyclopedic entry. Author seems unwilling to discuss on talk page. Does not adhere to a neutral point of view in any way from start to finish, for example "'Gyatso (2003: pp.132-133) beautifully illustrates the majesty of emanation theory and its salient interpenetration with sentient beings'". I would just cut it down to a stub, but I don't think I'd know where to begin. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why not redirect to Sentience#Eastern religion pro tem, per WP:NOTCLEANUP? Richard Pinch (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments While I agree that this article is completely ridiculous, full of misapprehensions about "encyclopedicality", fair use, and certain concepts—Turing test, for instance, has tenuous connections at best to this topic—and in any case not useful to the vast majority of readers, I'm not sure without more discussion that deletion is the answer. As you suggest, it could have been legitimate, which suggests to me in turn that it should be. It does need to be started over or cut down by maybe nine-tenths. I'm afraid redirecting it to the Sentience article proper will be too confining and may cause problems with some of WP's Buddhologists. I've started work on an alternative stub, which I will link here for referencing and polishing shortly. /Ninly (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If an article is badly written, that's a reason to rewrite it, not to delete it. The nominator says we could have an article about a legitimate Buddhist concept, so that, rather than deletion, is the solution. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

:*What I'm trying to say is that I don't think the current article can be salvaged and it should be deleted with no prejudice toward future re-creation as a proper article. On the other hand, I'd like to see Ninly's alternate idea, maybe we could just replace it now and close up the AfD, that would be fine with me too. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• keep AfD is not for cleanup, nom. gives no reason subject itself is against policy. Sticky Parkin 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

:*At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I don't think the current article can be cleaned up and the easiest way to fix it would be to delete and start over. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as admittedly a notable topic, even by the nom. I don't find it incomprehensible, but the quotes are a little excessive for our customary fair use, though probably within the US legal limits. If some of it is incorrect, it can be fixed. There are a great many English-speaking people in the world interested in Buddhism--I don't know the intersection between Buddhists and those who can read English, but I'd guess at 50 million of the perhaps 500 million [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#Buddhism_today Buddhists] and then there are all those interested non-Buddhist Westerners.... But that's not even relevant, because our articles doesn't have to be useful to a large number of readers, since this is a comprehensive encyclopedia. I'd say, in fact, that articles on very specialized topics are ones that are important to have, because people need information about what they don't already know. DGG (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

: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.