Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Charles Muller


 * 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   keep. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A. Charles Muller

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable person, article possibly written by the person himself Quest09 (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He is actually a well known scholar in two fields: Buddhist Studies (especially Korean) and the use of Chinese characters in Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese (which is where I heard of him). He is one of the authors of a well cited dictionary of Chinese Buddhist terms (156 cites on google scholar --- a lot for a specialist dictionary), and has around 30 other citations.  Google scholar under counts humanities researchers and people working with non-English traditions (it has none of the citations to his work in Korean for example).  I have added one reference (all I have time for tonight) and a simple google search turns up plenty more.  Francis Bond (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewrite Needs further references, but it seems the person is notable per the reasons highlighted by Francis Bond above. Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep for the present. Could be stronger with better sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete - My hive mind indicates that this stub bio is a full-on POV-push: "His long and extensive work with the development of responsible, properly accredited online resources coupled with the constant stream of intellectual theft from such works has led him, along with notable figures such as Jaron Lanier, to become a strident critic of the "hive mind" and "mob rule" model that governs Wikipedia and similar anonymously-edited online references." (unreferenced, of course!) Carrite (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he would be horribly unhappy to discover that Wikipedia has an article on him, if he did not wrote it himself, of course. Quest09 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep as a notable scholar. The fact that he is a critic of Wikipedia is no sort of delete argument.  Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Would you prefer the argument that this should be deleted as an unsourced BLP? Which it is, incidentally... Or that no notability is demonstrated in the article, perhaps? Which is not, incidentally. Carrite (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Having revisited the stubbed out article, delete vote stricken. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I nominated this article for deletion and I still believe it's a case of delete. 1st: if the article was written by A. Muller himself, then we have some problems - lack of NPOV, lack of sources, titillating style. 2nd: if the article was not written by A. Muller himself, but by a user trying to pass as him, and remembering that he's clearly anti-WK, then, we should, too, delete it. An alternative would be to rewrite it completely, starting from scratch. Quest09 (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither NPOV nor titillating style are reasons for deletion, only rewriting. Incorrect un-sourced information would be, but I don't see any in the article.  Users' writing about themselves is not encouraged, but neither is it forbidden, as long as the information can be verified.  Francis Bond (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your rationale above only applies to BLP articles if they will indeed be rewritten. Otherwise must the contentions material, even if it's positive, be removed. In any case, I do agree that someone has to rewrite it, so I suppose we can reach consensus around this.Quest09 (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.