Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tachikawa-ryu

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tachikawa-ryu

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

This article has no references, no categories, claims to be some sort of tantric sex thing, and is overall full of what appears to be utter bullshit. I tagged it as db-a7, but apparently it's a religious/philosophical doctrine (which it isn't), and then I prodded it, but apparently it was a lazy prod and notability is easily verified, but isn't. I don't know if this is real or just some pseudo-religious bullshit that's being promoted here. I am fairly certain that in the current state of the article, it should not be kept.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either this is a hoax, or it's an unverified story without the references to back it up. Either way, it's not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/re-stub. Not a hoax. Corresponding Japanese wp article: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%8B%E5%B7%9D%E6%B5%81_(%E5%AF%86%E6%95%99) Shii (tock) 05:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Japanese and German language are also of dubious quality and very little coverage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any references to verify the facts, this can be considered little more than a hoax and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Someone can always recreate an article on the subject at a later date when or if reliable sourcing can be found. --DAJF (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of references on Google Books. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But are any of them reliable?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article by all means! But improve it and give documentation. The Japanese article on it is short but reliable -- please see -- and it lists reputable scholarly sources and links. The existence of the sect is established historical knowledge in Japan, though it was persecuted severely in the medieval and Edo periods. There are some reliable summaries in English based on Japanese scholarship. Charles3399 (PhD, Japanese Studies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles3399 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (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.