Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 09:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism and the body

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod, redirection to a better article declined, so unfortunately AfD is all that's left.

This is one of a group of extremely poor articles written as part of the same "school project" apparently under the guidance of Vote Cthulhu (talk). Three of them are currently at AfD and this one probably should be as well - it's original research, POV, content-forkish and a general mess. As with the others the idea of the article is fine but the execution is unacceptably poor and there's nothing here that can be salvaged. Most of the topics in the article are already either directly covered at Noble Eightfold Path or can be easily accessed from there.

Fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV

See also for information Articles for deletion/Hinduism and science, Articles for deletion/Taoism and death, and Articles for deletion/Islam and civil rights. andy (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep I do not see any indication of either POV or OR in this article. I note that andy is the one editor responsible for having suggested all of the articles he uses as examples here for deletion, and so this is no indication of consensus. He appears to be on some crusade against articles associated with my name. The redirect that andy employed here was completely senseless as the material in this article is presented in a way completely unrelated to the Noble Eightfold Path. This article and others certainly require further editing, but there is no reason for deletion.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —andy (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete into other articles. I put the part about sexuality into a new article, Sexuality and Buddhism, and the suicide part should either be merged into Karma in Buddhism or Religious views of suicide. Other parts seems a bit vague. Siru108 (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  —Aleta  Sing  13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept your good faith but am not sure that your copying of material from this and other articles has done enough to satisfy the requirements of the licence which governs our work. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it should always be merge and redirect (rather than merge and delete) to preserve GDFL. Aleta  Sing 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete part of a very misguided school project where some teacher decided it would be a great idea to put his kids' homework on Wikipdia (see related articles and talk pages). No objection if someone wants to lift through the litter and merge anything salvagable to other articles, but the bulk of this is WP:OR and needs to go. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly seems to be WP:OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nearly all original research. Nothing here with which to work.  Jd 027  (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Way too much synthetic material Lets  drink  Tea  15:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom without prejudice to someone else writing an encyclopedic article on this subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or whatever it is we do to unsalvageably synthetic articles that have had content merged elsewhere. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Errr... we keep them, it seems! Have a look at Articles for deletion/Christianity in Haiti. If you can figure out what's going on there let me know. andy (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think redirect would be the term which Eldereft is seeking. Aleta  Sing 18:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It is, but I do not at present have any useful ideas for a logical redirect target. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Buddhism? Aleta  Sing 02:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This could be a very resourceful article i don't see any pov added in my opinion,I don't see anything wrong with keeping this at all. Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has much promise and should be left to experts in the topic to merge into our coverage of this major religion. As an example of what can be done, please see Women in Buddhism which I saved at AFD after a less-promising start but which is now a substantial article.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Using attitudes towards 'the body' as an interpretive frame is very popular in religious studies these days, but this article doesn't really do much in that direction.  The sexuality section might be useful, but it's already being moved elsewhere.  The introduction doesn't introduce the topic or frame the article; the Eightfold Path section is summary of material that belongs elsewhere.  Addiction section is mostly generalizations.  Some of the suicide material might could be merged into the Religious views of suicide article.  Not focused enough on the topic, not enough material on topic to be worth keeping around.  --Clay Collier (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep : A poorly thought out synthesis, but section "The Insignificance of a body" could be edited into a defense of this topic very easily. Sexuality, Addiction and Buddhism need to be removed: they are tangential at best and are covered elsewhere.  The Suicide section should remain only as it deals with the topic, "handling the body after death" might be a helpful addition.  What do folks editing Buddhism make of this?  Would these editors welcome a fork such as this or not?  In short: edit the hell out it and keep the topic. T L Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say: topic is worthwhile, nothing from the current article can be salvaged. In the section you propose saving, the introduction should be completely excised as not related to the topic; it's primarily general intro material, unreferenced, and makes too many generalizations.  The Eightfold Path section is... primarily a summary of the Eightfold Path, with little to no specific application to the body as an interpretive frame.  There is scholarship that has been done on the place of the body in Buddhism, but the current article doesn't reflect that at all.  The only thing that I would say should stay is the title; it's a valid topic, but it needs to be re-framed, and written to reflect sources that focus on this topic, rather than trying to apply principles from general introductions to Buddhism to this topic.  It would have to be edited to the point that there was nothing left.  --Clay Collier (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm convinced by the arguments of User:Mitsube and Clay Collier. It could be immediately recreated if someone stepped up, but I'm convinced (in part also by examining the Buddhism article) that there's nothing in the current article salvagable. I also don't see any indication that this is either a needed fork from Buddhism or that there's anyone who wants to create a decent, non "personal essay" article on this topic.  I hope someone does, eventually.  T L Miles (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article can be edited to meet Wikipedia standards. I don't see what is gained in deleting it. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's the whole thing about "can be edited". You see, I don't know how to edit such a mess into a real article and no-one else seems to have any ideas. Meanwhile it sits there as a blot on the landscape, squatting heavily on wikipedia policies. Squelch. andy (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge anything that is salvageable to wherever it is most relevant, and redirect to Buddhism. Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 02:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a comment. This article seems pretty unrepresentative of Buddhism as a whole, but so are lots of Buddhism articles on Wikipedia. The reason is simple. They're mostly written by Western(ized) Buddhists, who are themselves unrepresentative of Buddhism as a whole. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the Pure Land view of the body, Peter? Mitsube (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with PL. Modern/Western Buddhism is a distinct form of Buddhism from all the various traditional forms. See User:Peter jackson for citations. Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Clay Collier. The only other alternative is to blank the article. I will add that all the matters about sexuality, suicide, addiction etc would not properly belong in an article titled "Buddhism and the body". In Buddhism, taking a stance on these issues is not a matter of primary concern and the positions do not come from a doctrinal stance on "the body" in the abstract, in relation to some absolutist conception of ethics. The role of the body in Buddhist thought is more technical and is related to other Buddhist concepts such as the aggregates of clinging and clinging itself. As such an article on "Buddhism and the body" if written correctly would look like the latter articles and anatta. On a more pragmatic level, allowing this teacher to have children write original research articles on quite difficult topics sets a bad precedent for the future of wikipedia and for wikipedians who are concerned with maintaining a certain level of adherence to wikipedia policies. Mitsube (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is so helpful to have input from someone who knows the subject! Many thanks. andy (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You must try reading the article which User:Mitsube recommends instead: skandha. No doubt it is very profound but it quite fails our guidelines by being quite incomprehensible owing, in part, to its extensive use of non-English words.  Please compare the two articles and then tell us which is the more accessible, as required by our policy: A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic..  One may start this comparison by consideration of the articles titles: Buddhism and the body vs Skandha.  Colonel Warden (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Pali words used in that article are defined first, and as usual, clicking on linked articles may be necessary. Mitsube (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The two articles are related but distinct. Buddhism and the Body should cover largely contemporary research in academia which focuses on issues of embodiment, gender, sexuality, and physicality in general. Skandha is a very precise technical term that comes out of the scriptural and commentarial tradition.  While the introduction should be improved to give a clearer idea of the concept, realistically, there is no way to explain skandha without reference to some prior knowledge of Buddhism, just as you can't explain what a quark is without reference to some other concepts in physics.  Neither article can really substitute for the other; Buddhism and the Body should answer broad questions about the attitudes of  various Buddhist traditions and scriptures  topics like gender, mortification of the body, body image, sickness, etc., while skandha is really just about a very technical term from Buddhist metaphysics. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Remember, deletion should be done as a last result. The article's topic is valid, and any problems with the content can be edited over time.  Discuss what you think is wrong with it on the discussion page for the article, and add some tags if you deem it necessary.  It has enough content in it of encyclopedia valid to remain.   D r e a m Focus  20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is misconceived. It should be deleted and then you can start it from scratch. Mitsube (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It seems to be recognised above that the topic(s) covered in this article are entirely valid. The only other argument being made is one regarding whether the article can be edited and cleaned up or not. Obviously, this is a problem across Wikipedia, but it is one that is being remedied daily as editors do their work. There is a lot of useful information in this particular article, which has also been noted in comments above. Deleting all of this simply makes no sense when the topic is good and much of the content is good. That some of it is messy indicates only that it should be tagged as such in order to draw those editors who are interested and capable of editing it do so.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're only allowed to 'vote' once. PhilKnight (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep reluctantly as the name should probably be changed, but an article describing the physical aspects of Buddhism, rather than spiritual ones, is more than welcome and I'm sure numerous studies have been taken about this.  Them From  Space  16:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review the comments by Mitsube earlier in this debate, arguing that the article is conceptually flawed. andy (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I read his comments and while this may not be a part of Buddhist theology, the effects of Buddhism on the body are important in a more scientific way. Buddhism goes in, what comes out?  Them  From  Space  17:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not what the article is about. andy (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sexuality, addiction, suicide... all these are the basis of many scientific studies. I never said the article doesn't need fleshing out and expansion, but the topic that its aiming at has clearly been commented on by the scientific community as well as regular sources.  Them From  Space  17:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, really, you have it back to front. This article is mainly about the spiritual dimension, if it's about anything at all (which I doubt). It's definitely not about the scientific aspects of "the effects of Buddhism on the body" and there's no way it could be unless you rewrote it so heavily it became something other than what it is (whatever it is!). Mind-body interactions are a whole 'nother subject. andy (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article does not profess to present a theological argument. Mitsube's comments are valuable, but are not the end-all here (for one thing, the editors of this article have not been children as far as I know, and further, Wikipedia is meant to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so what does it matter if they were?). What the Buddha taught and what Buddhists believe are not necessarily the same thing, as indicated already by Peter jackson. So, Buddhist attitudes towards issues like suicide and drug addiction have aspects that are scientific, theological, social, cultural, etc. This article, as rightly noted by Them, points to just such socio-cultural elements of the effect of Buddhist belief upon such areas of human concern as suicide and drug-addiction. There is no logical flaw to the way this material is presented, though obviously the article needs cleaning up. I further note that other editors above have also acknowledged the value of at least some of what is presently written here. That recognition alone should be enough to indicate that neither blanking nor deletion of the article is called for.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to introduce a suggestion
 * This is my attempt at creating a compromise solution to the problems with this article. I took the current article, cut out anything I felt was original synthesis or unrelated to the topic, and re-organized the article.  I've added very little myself, except for a couple of introductory sentences and a new introduction to frame the topic.  I have references for things I've added in the form of a couple of EOB and other articles, but will add them later.  My question is: what do we think about using this as a replacement for the current article?
 * Great job! Mitsube (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some significant improvements over the original article, though obviously still needs some fixing up. I am happy to see the topic being maintained and that the sources and some content are being kept in this version. This is precisely the kind of work that can be done to improve articles rather than simply deleting them out of hand. Thanks.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2009 (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.