Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Zen


 * 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. Cbrown1023 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dark Zen

 * — (View AfD)

User:Nat Krause has proposed deletion of this article, stating "Importance is marginal at best. Basically, just a website." &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is apparently important enough that E-sangha, a very large online Buddhist forum, makes a point to ban linking to Dark Zen websites from the forum. Here is a general discussion of Dark Zen on that forum, and here it is compared, perhaps overdramatically, to Aum Shinrikyo. Further indication of its importance is that Beliefnet considers Dark Zen notable enough to provide its followers their own subforum there. It has at least one book devoted to it, and for whatever reason unbeknownst to me, it elicits rage from its detractors (read the reviews on amazon). The Dark Zen Meditation Manual has been excerpted, at The Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun, and this instance appears to satisfy criterion 3 of WP:WEB, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Discussors are referred to the discussion that has already gone down at Talk:Dark Zen on this point. To sum up my opinion, criterion 3 is supposed to involve materials being redistributed by an outlet that is itself very well-known; but the Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun is even less notable than Dark Zen is.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete So its claim to notability is being a web pest? I do not think that is good enough. --Gwern (contribs) 23:50 12 December 2006 (GMT) 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are some indications that this is a vanity press, per "This work is published by the author's own publishing company" for a very similar title. - 152.91.9.144 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Dark Star Publications" is certainly a Dark Zen vanity press, although it's interesting that Amazon has chosen to carry some of their publications. It's unclear whether or not the various names of the authors associated with Dark Zen are actual people or alter egos of the founder.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:WEB. Extremely marginal Buddhist group, known largely from the postings of its founder on various internet forums. (One might want to check out a few of the more interesting materials on their website, though, in particular Hollingsworth's blog. Just don't believe everything he says&mdash;or anybody else.)&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dark Star Publications does not appear to be a vanity press, nor owned by the Dark Zen people. Although they are out of business now, one can see their old website at the Internet Archive, and their submission requirements seem too discriminating for a vanity press. Lists of publishers, like this one, say things like "not recommended" but nothing about vanity publisher although the same list assigns this label to other publishers on the same page. That list actually says they are an imprint of "Romance Foretold Inc.". I do see what that one comment on Amazon says, but it appears to be an unsubstantiated insult. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Dark Star Publications" seems like a rather obvious name, and I would be somewhat surprised if it turned out that the one you have found records of is the same one that published the Dark Zen-related books. Looking at their submission requirements, it appears they published fiction, and it gives no indication that they might want to publish Buddhist meditation manuals.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They did like to publish "dark" stuff, though. They might have made an exception. Since they emphasize the "dark" over and over, I don't think it's a stretch to say that "Dark Zen" could be published by this company; in light of the publisher's focus the collision of the two names doesn't appear to indicate anything "obvious" to me. And surely calling this fiction wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination. ;) &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also if they are separate companies then they were both operating in 2001 and this would presumably have been a trademark problem. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:48, 13 December 2006 (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.