Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nang Jang

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 redirect to Dudjom Lingpa. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nang Jang[edit]

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

Fails all WP:BKCRIT & WP:PLOT#1, no secondary sources cited or available, permanent orphan (1 incoming link) KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: Additionally, this book is listed by its transliterated (from Tibetan) nickname rather than by its proper title in either Tibetan or English (translation published as Buddhahood Without Meditation ISBN 1881847330) and is notable only for the fact that it has been so translated. No secondary source material is available in English, and none I can find in Tibetan (though I am no scholar of that language). All existing citations are to the primary source. It has had Template:rewrite for almost three years, and IMO cannot be rewritten to conform to policy or standards, no matter how much I personally enjoyed the book or the attendant teachings. It is unlikely ever to be linked to from anything but Dudjom Lingpa, the author's bio. KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a pity to delete this article, as it does contain interesting and useful information, which is referenced. I don't like actions that smack of censorship (I am not saying that this is necessarily the motive here). The article can easily be linked to other articles on Tibetan Buddhism or Buddha Nature, so the argument that it is irremediably an orphan does not hold much water. Totally deleting the article strikes me as too drastic a move. I vote for its retention, but improvement by its being linked to other articles, as indicated. Best wishes. From Suddha (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom in reply: Certainly not meaning to censor, but you should probably read WP:BKCRIT, WP:PLOT, and WP:V to see why this article is not suitable for a project like Wikipedia. Especially note that, whereas the Nang Jang article cites only the Nang Jang book, standard editorial policy around here is that, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Also "orphan" does not mean "no outgoing links," but rather "no incoming links," and few such are likely. It would be different if the book were widely cited elsewhere, but it isn't so far as I have been able to tell (which makes sense, since it was a "secret teaching" for most of its existence). --KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. How about if we incorporate the information contained in this article into the Dudjom Lingpa article? That might solve the problem? Best wishes. From Suddha (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dudjom Lingpa, which already includes a lengthy section on this. (Dudjom Lingpa is apparently the teacher whose teachings are in the Nang Jang.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree at this point in time with Colapeninsula. The key info is now at Dudjom Lingpa. Best wishes. Suddha (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wong Nang Jang is notable. However, I wasn't able to find anything on this topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dudjom Lingpa per Colapeninsula. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:50, 30 August 2012 (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.