- Buddhism and violence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
page needs improving not deleting- deleted without discussionandycjp (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remind the deleting admin of the opening paragraph of WP:CSD. Please cite the criterion used. The deleting admin should archive his talk page; it is much to big. It is also misformatted, at least on my screen. Incubate the deleted article. It is not unsalvageable, but it is true that the article, "Despite the widespread belief that Buddhism is wholly pacifistic, there is a long history of violence within the 2,500 years of Buddhist traditions" is written as an academic essay putting forward a synthesized view of the author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubation would be better than deletion but I would prefer the article to be fully restored to public view with an intro rewrite.andycjp (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it deleted - there were sufficient problems with the article (in particular synth and copyvio) that I suspect it would need to be fundamentally rewritten. - Bilby (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Upon viewing the cached version available above, this article was pure WP:SYNTH. To quote an advocate from the article's talk page, "But if criticism about Christianity, such as: Christianity and violence is OK, so is this, Buddhism should not be exempt from criticism". That is the kind of tit-for-tat mindset that infests the Israel-Palestine topic area. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, deleted out of process, no CSD applied. Thereafter it should be AFDd or incubated. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I commented on the talk page prior to deletion that it was an essay advancing a position as opposed to an encyclopedic article. I was thinking of nominating at WP:AFD, and in all honesty wasn't considering a speedy. However, it certainly should have been deleted, and consider this to be a just about acceptable application of Ignore All the Rules. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as above. andycjp (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withholding judgment until the deleting admin's comments. If G12, fine, but document the source. If G10... no, it wasn't G10. If OR/SYNTH, that's NEVER a speedy criterion. Jclemens (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The section I was concerned about was the portion on Japan, which is taken from OUP. I don't know what YellowMonkey saw as a problem. - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not seeing a comment from the deleting admin, I went to his talk page, where it appears no one at all had asked him to come here and comment... so I just did. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per terrible rationale articulated below. OR and Essay are not speedy reasons; copyvio is, but only in cases otherwise irreparable; and "waste of time" shows an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude inconsistent with exercising administrative privileges over an article. Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where you're coming from, but, we should sometimes let common sense do its job (that's why we have IAR). Time is not unlimited and there is no sense in wasting it. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I look at it a lot like SNOW: if someone objects, then the expedited process wasn't proper in the first place. I wouldn't necessarily !vote to keep this in an AfD, but I'm certainly willing to give it a 7-day benefit of the doubt, AGFing that people who want to see it kept might just use that time to render it suitable for inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn but incubate. Since no copyright infringements were mentioned in the deletion summary, I don't see a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Based on Stifle's suggestion of overturning the deletion, I don't think a case can be made for deletion under the snowball clause—I don't think a deletion discussion would be open and shut. What I do see is an article with serious flaws, including large amounts of synthesis. The topic is reasonably encyclopedic, so I think there's hope for the article, but it will take a lot of work—that's why I recommend restoration to the incubator rather than the main encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Reasons for deletion based on WP:NOT such as original research or WP:SYNTH do not qualify for speedy deletion. Such decisions must be made by consensus as they are subjective in nature. This may very well be due for deletion, but not before proper public scrutiny. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 20:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the reason for this article deletion was G12, copyright infringment, then I endorse the deletion but caution the deleting admin to be very clear that such is the case when making the deletion. I see G12 being mentioned here, but I don't see it being used as the basis for deletion. If it is a copyright infringment then it should remain deleted. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 20:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, per process it should be AFDd or incubated.Kanatonian (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, since the article didn't meet any speedy deletion criterion is should not have been speedily deleted. I do think the article is largely synthesis, but that's a problem that needs to be discussed at AfD or elsewhere. The Japan section is a copyvio and should be removed but the rest looks OK. Hut 8.5 19:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Tarc and WP:IAR. Obviously not encyclopedic material. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted essay, OR, copyvio, waste of time YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. This is so completely SYNTH that I cannot see any reasonable probability that it would be kept after an AfD. Thus the procedural error is harmless. T. Canens (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
