Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist views on sin


 * 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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist views on sin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Every single view on "sin" given shows that there is no sin in Buddhism. The first quote notes that some Buddhists will use the term colloquially, but that Buddhism has no proper sense of the term. This article need not exist. Dharmalion76 (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – The first quote does not say that; it says that Buddhists use a different concept of sin than those using it "in the sense of an act of defiance against the authority of a personal god". A quick search on Google Books turns up a wide range of independent coverage of the concept of sin in Buddhism: (particularly relevant given its explicit statement that scholars dispute the "reluctance by some (primarily Western Buddhists) to acknowledge that there is such a thing as sin in Buddhism"),, , . The article should be reworked to describe the different POVs with the appropriate editorial judgement, but that's a content issue and not a deletion issue. — Nizolan  (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article history I also note that deleted a large chunk of sourced content on rather dubious grounds (diff). While some of the sources used there were questionable, the translation of the concept gogyakuzai in—for instance—Japanese Buddhism as "five sins" seems well-supported  and much of that material should probably be restored. — Nizolan  (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan  (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan  (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan  (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Buddhism may not have a particular universal view on sin, but it also doesn't have that type of view on God, yet the article God in Buddhism exists. And there's good reason for that: there are varying views of God among Buddhists. The same thing is true for views of sin among Buddhists, and it's something that numerous notable Buddhists have commented on. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Interesting case. There is no "sin" in Buddhism, and yet here we have an article on Buddhist's perspectives on sin. The question raised here is whether or not the article should exist. A Google Books search with 105,000 results on Buddhism and sin. So, to answer the question, yes, this article should exist. Yet, I wonder if a more appropriate title would be Morality in Buddhism? It would encompass more than just Bhuddist views on sin, but it might conflict with Purity in Buddhism. Regardless, that is a matter for a move request—not deletion.-- MarshalN20  T al k 23:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Buddhist morality already exists (as Buddhist ethics), someone just forgot to redirect "morality in Buddhism". "Sin" is a somewhat separate and more specific topic with a range of academic literature discussing it, so I don't think a merge would make sense. — Nizolan  (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as this still seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister   talk  02:19, 11 April 2016 (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.