Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodhisattvas of the Earth


 * 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. –Darkwind (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Bodhisattvas of the Earth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, this article started out as pure COPYVIO and now is "rewritten" copyvio as far as I can tell. It's also been tagged as an orphan, not neutral, OR and unbalanced since January. Ogress smash! 01:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is still one sided thereby promoting a religious organisation. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * KeepJust received notice about this nomination for deletion. I disagree entirely.  I do not have the time to thoroughly refute the contention now but will write more in the next few days.  In the next few days I will document that this is an important component of several Nichiren schools and warrants a separate article, not just inclusion in the Lotus Sutra article.BrandenburgG (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * "Keep." The Bodhisattvas of the Earth is an important concept in almost all of the Nichiren schools as well as in various Lotus Sutra-based religions. — Lmkei22 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Lmkei22 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   14:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Keep." Secular rationalists are unlikely to be confused.--Davidcpearce (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you clarify what you mean by "Secular rationalists are unlikely to be confused"? I don't understand. Ogress smash! 21:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Apologies for the clack of clarity. User Catflap08 was worried that the entry didn't critically examine the claims made - and could thereby be viewed as promoting a religious organization. On balance this seems unlikely, IMO. --Davidcpearce (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment En contraire. The concept is stated within named Sutra and not a concept as most sources given is likely to promote a certain religious group. Hence the issue should be explained within the article on Lotus Sutra.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   we ♥ our hive  06:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC) The question is not if the Bodhisattvas of the Earth are worth mentioning, but in what place they should be mentioned. As I said, rather hectically more references were added about Nichiren Schools and other Buddhist schools – fair enough. The Bodhisattvas of the Earth are most closely, if not exclusively, linked to the Lotus Sutra and I believe that this is the place were one should elaborate on the issue – and this can be done in a few sentences. The Lotus Sutra does not only have religious implications, as it also influenced East Asian literature in general, and its content should be discussed and described in the article that already exists. The deletion of the article in question was proposed at a stage when the references given hinted mostly in one direction – that is Soka Gakkai, an it’s exactly issues like this one that are lacking in the article on Soka Gakkai itself. Yes, other Buddhist schools do hold the concept of Bodhisattvas of the Earth dear but since definitions, interpretations and their weighting are diverse they should be elaborated on in the respective article. It’s exactly in those articles were one can mention and elaborate on what weight is given to the idea of "Bodhisattvas of the Earth" within a Buddhist school. One could write an article about the “ceremony in the air”, as it is also mentioned in the Lotus Sutra, but what that ceremony in the air means to different groups should be mentioned in the articles on respective groups. All I would suggest is to delete this present article, mention in a few words the concept within the article on the Lotus Sutra and insert redirects/links to respective “Beliefs and practice” sections within already existing articles. The present article has been pushed by Soka Gakkai adherents and I believe that rather than using Wikipedia as a directory of Soka Gakkai beliefs, the article on named group should be improved. SGI organises anti-nuke exhibitions, fair enough those things are nasty, but should we allow an article on “anti-nuke exhibition” just because SGI engages in it? It boils down to the question of relevance and if found relevant, relevant in which context. .--Catflap08 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2015 (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.