Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism Research Institute
- 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 delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhism Research Institute[edit]
- Buddhism Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It has been argued by the creator that this article is exempt from criterion A7 on the basis that it's a school. However, no notability has been asserted, which means the article merely gets a 7-day reprieve unless notability is shown. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:CSD doesn't exactly specify what counts as a school. I can see this being a bit of a loophole, but either way the subject doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. Feezo (Talk) 03:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable - first western branch of an Esoteric school with a 2555 year history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.12.182 (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blanchardb#New_to_this.
the Buddhism Research Institute is a school, exempted from your deletion under the cause stated. please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miao Victory (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It might very well be, but please keep in mind that if the Institute has not received coverage in reliable third-party references such as major news sources, scholarly papers, etc., the article on it will not survive a deletion discussion. So your priority should be to show that such coverage already exists. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The following are not reliable sources?
Time Warner Cable local news - http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content/top_stories/519730/amsterdam-residents-vote-on-two-proposals/ CBS Local News 6 - http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/says-1278830-power-solar.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miao Victory (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miao Victory (talk • contribs)
- Schools are exempt from speedy deletions — they can still be nominated in the regular "articles for deletion" process, which is what this is. The primary criteria for notability is "significant coverage in secondary sources"; I see that the CBS article doesn't actually mention the organization by name. To address your other point, that this is the "first western branch of an Esoteric school with a 2555 year history", the guidelines generally do not consider inherited notability. Feezo (Talk) 09:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you supply citations regarding this notability from neutral, third party sources? If not, I recommend Delete. I also have a problem with the "school exemption" loophole under speedy criteria. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Search for "Lucas Wang" or Buddha "Amsterdam, NY" This has been covered by all three major networks and the Times Union which is syndicated as the front page for most papers across the nation. What am I missing here, what makes all this not notable?Miao Victory (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL "While the property has been purchased for the Buddhism Research Institute, there is no presence for the school yet online, and no reports of a physical opening of the property" - in other words, it's not up and running yet. The references say that agreement for properties to be sold have been made. I've Googled for Lucas Z. Wang, and after eliminating a scientist called Z. Wang (who has an unfortunate propensity for authoring papers with people called Lucas), I found 12 results (of which some were Z. Wang creeping in again). I'm rather suspicious of an organisation like this flourishing claims of billions of dollars and secret teachings hidden for millenia. I would like to see better evidence than any I've seen so far. WP:RS and WP:V are the not very secret teachings to be followed here. Peridon (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, do I understand this correctly? You want evidence of an Esoteric School that has remained private for over 2000 years? Don't you think that if this was available that the School would not have remained Esoteric for over 2000 years? Seriously, think about what you are saying here.
So how do we solve this? This School exists. How do we reflect it in the WIKI?Miao Victory (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The answer is very easy. As the article appears to be not about the school but about the Institute, we ignore the school totally for the moment. The Institute is as yet a paper exercise and not yet up and running. Therefore, CRYSTAL applies and the article goes. If the article is really about the school, then without evidence of its notability BY WIKIPEDIA'S STANDARDS, not whatever it says in your dictionary, then it goes. Simples, to quote a certain Russian meerkat. I have thought seriously about what I am saying here. I very rarely don't. We get many articles posted about esoteric religions and societies, obscure 'known only to a few' legends and customs, hardly known Viking chieftains and so on. Most are hoaxes. Some are shown to be real but failing reliable sourcing WP:RS. Others get rescued (I can claim a Viking or similar to my credit). I do a lot here at AfD, and find that when an author or supporter starts claiming that their subject should be exempt from the requirements of reliable sourcing, then there is usually no reliable sourcing to be obtained. If that is the case, please feel welcome to come back when the organisation is a bit less esoteric and is more covered according to our requirements. Please note that if you claim that you know all about it so it's OK, you fall foul of WP:OR, our policy on original research. To sum up: reliable sourcing is needed - not just newspaper clips that someone got a local authority to agree to a sale, as similar bodies have been mistaken before. Note that I am not accusing anyone of deception. I an basically saying "put up or shut up". Or to be more polite, "Show me". I would be interested to know how this secretive and esoteric body has managed to amass funds of the nature claimed without attracting the attention of a taxation office, whether in China (where under Mao any source of wealth would have been of great interest), or in the USA (where the Infernal Revenue doesn't like to miss any tricks - and nor does my country's version of the Inquisition). Failing any success in complying, come back when you can. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike an article about different masonic offshoots, etc., the WPHO is the first publicly visible administration of the Esoteric School. The WPHO has a poorly translated english version webpage at WPHO.org. and has begun classes for the first semester of the Institute. If spending a million in a depressed rural NYS town (used to be a City) to begin this school is not enough, what is?
Separately on the tax issue, all the funds are in non-profits that have to invest in the mission of the org. The org builds temples and schools. All the money goes to buying property and enhancing existing structures to achieve the mission of the Organization. No tax problem, since the monks are more worried about the karma than the tax assessors about fraud.Miao Victory (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the temples and schools in these united States are in the news articles already provided (40 to 50 properties in the Amsterdam, NY area). The temples and schools in China are revealed in Chinese publications written in Chinese. If u can read Chinese you can start here to get the Guang Huan Mi Zong Chinese characters to search in Chinese language publications to verify.
As for non-profit activity what I could find on the orgs are, in order of major use, Guang Huang Mi Zong, American Sports Committee, Inc., World Peace and Health Organization, Inc., and the Buddhism Research Institute.
Be aware the English is really, really, really, etc. bad.Miao Victory (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to meet notability standards, dubious content. bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so two dismissals with no explanation of your assessment. You two get elected to decide for the rest of us?Miao Victory (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No really, make your arguments, baseless assertions are what we are trying to avoid here, correct? Miao Victory (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend you make your case by finding non-trivial citations which establish notability. The two citations in the article currently are, in my opinion, trivial mentions that basically indicate that this institute exists (they're not actually ABOUT the institute). The two users above are terse, but they both state directly a concern about "lack of notability" which is my concern as well. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not established by current cites. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:06, 23 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.