Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist influences on print technology

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist influences on print technology[edit]

Lengthy, but not encyclopedic essay. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This is definitely useful information for writing an article and we shouldn't disappear it. It does not belong in article space at this point. Take it to my userspace if nobody else will deal with it. Shii (tock) 01:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of this material is already in History of typography in East Asia and related articles. But its a good essay, and we could probably mergein some of it. DGG (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, even just basic formatting (possible copyvio paste job?) but I'd love to read the finished article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a merge, as suggested by DGG. This reminds me of one of my favorite lines from M*A*S*H. B.J. Hunnicut noted that the Koreans "were printing with movable type in 1403", and Hawkeye's reply was "I was in 1401 and the noise kept me up all night!" Mandsford (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG. Interesting by not encyclopedic. McWomble (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay, likely copy-pasted from other sources. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I believe you are assuming bad faith, or more specifically, bad scholarship. Shii (tock) 04:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is copied from someplace else, but I also don't see why we should have such a lengthy essay on this topic. This actually looks like a researched term paper, and it's not a bad paper, but it's certainly not an encyclopedic article. Now, the problem with merging or saving some of the information is that having to go through such a lengthy article to find the important encyclopedic nuggets is an arduous task, and I for one would be unwilling to have to do that kind of work. Better to start from scratch, if this needs to be a WP article. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think something of value is in here, but it will require a major rewrite in order for it to reach its full potential. For starters, the title needs to be changed. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a good deal of work. That's not a criterion for deletion, though. Notable subject, referenced. Wily D 15:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the proper work is a merge with the article suggested above. DGG (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Userfy This is an essay not an encyclopedic article. And it's chock full of original research and opinion and almost wholly without references. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2008 (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.