Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agga Maha Pandita


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agga Maha Pandita

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article about a type of title with no references and lacking context. I cannot find any reliable sources about the history of the title. Clubmarx (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--mono 06:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Article does not comply with WP:MOS.--mono 06:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Response to comment from that nomination for deleteAgga Maha Pandita


 * Strong KeepThere is non-sense that no references or lacking context about this famous Title if without properly search it for exist.


 * This is under knowledge of Asian and Buddhism affairs about this famous Monk's Title so accusing for delete nomination is void.


 * Also just because someone can't find the knowledge, it doesn't mean to that thing doesn't real exist in the world and since we will be sharing humans knowledgeable in wiki here to get to know each other knowledge.


 * Reshaped also had been done so no need to delete for just to reshape again and since as you know editing properly by staff or someone can do proper reshaping without deleting.


 * Note: The Article absolute comply with WP:MOS. Not reasonable enough to delete the article without necessary to disturb contribute and effort work.

Add1: now article had been reshaped to be better looking again and request the staff that NOT TO DELETE the article and that's the reliable source and Title reward that really exist in the world.


 * Conclusion: Article had met under Guidelines of Wiki project and had been useful tips for learners and researcher so it should keep and can get further update from contributors.

The page will now continue to keep grow when after other Buddhist monks or knowledgeable persons who related to this get involved in this contributing. Thanks for keeping and not deleting, Thanks to user &amp;dorno rocks. and userMmlwin, greatly appreciated Myo007 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Myo007 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

*Neutral - the current article would need a lot of reshaping, but I think the title meets notability guidelines see: here, here (scholarly publication) and here &amp;dorno rocks.  (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP this article as it is about the top religious title in Myanmar being awarded to the top Buddhist Monks in Myanmar as well as other countries where Theravada Buddhism is followed.

The article needs to be edited, I agree. Deleting would not serve the objective of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmlwin (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete with no prejudice against recreation of a coherent replacement. The article is in such poor shape that this is one of those rare cases where it would be better to just start again. I42 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep article needs reshaping and more contribution but definitely not to be deleted. This topic has strong religious and cultural significance of its own. Redirection to pandit would be seriously inappropriate. Dhilung (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this article as it is or improve it. Why does somebody think that it does not comply with WP:MOS? 75.54.120.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC). — 75.54.120.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Clubmarx (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The quality of the English in this article is fairly poor, and it does not treat the matter in an encyclopaedic manner. I'm tending towards siding with I42 that we should either delete the article and start again or completely re-write. &amp;dorno rocks. (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then any Buddhists with Good English may improve the article with by Editing but no need to delete it, delete isn't the only way to the change the article with either better English nor to reshape but editing can do too it all too. As everyone know articles will be better and relevant by people involved in Editing and updating with reliable sources. There are millions Buddhist in the world then someone will see the article and improve it by editing , if simply deleting who gonna guarantee to restart again who log? Plant may need the seed or source before start to get bigger grow. I suggest any Buddhists that who have good English and good at reshaping may involve in Editing to follow all their Pleased. But Delete is not recommended. Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myo007 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If language is the problem, then improve it and donot delete unless it is so bad that nobody understands. Otherwise information on the content is encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.8.224 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

— 134.197.8.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Clubmarx (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a wikipedia account and have made some contributions before in Buddhist articles and others. I posted above message from my office computer without logging into my account, so the IP address is different. Sameer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC).


 * Please take a 2nd look, I took the liberty of making a quick pass at improving the language of the article. I also moved the external links and wikilinks just listed to the talk page. The article still needs expansion and references. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks much better. I'm for keeping the article in its current state. &amp;dorno rocks. (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added some other sources that mention the title in a bit more detail. It appears to be a religiously significant title and should be documented with an article. Silver  seren C 20:27, 10 April 2010 (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.