Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorje Shugden controversy


 * 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.   Discussion for a merger can be done at the article's talk page. lifebaka++ 13:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden controversy

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

Article title is prima-facie evidence of being a POV fork. A quick view of the article confirms it. Sceptre (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any salvageable information into main article, instruct editors there that controversy cannot be a separate article, as that violated NPOV policy on handling the topic fairly all in one place. If the info in this fork was largely POV and was removed for being POV from the main article (if that's what it is) they need to understand it suddenly does not become not a NPOV violation by being on another article. DreamGuy (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete: This article is not a POV fork. We separated the two articles along the lines of 'political controversy' and 'the deity itself'. These are two separate topics. There is more to Dorje Shugden than just this current controversy. To say they should be merged into one article would be to say there is no Dorje Shugden other than this controversy. It would be a POV fork only if it was one article 'pro-Dorje Shugden' and the other 'anti-Dorje Shugden'. This is not the case. Instead, both articles have both POV.

It should also not be merged because the article as it stands is already monstrously long. What needs to happen is it needs to be massively cut down to the core issues. The last thing we need to do is make the article even longer and more unreadable. Who but the most die hard will wade through the article as it stands.

There are many valid reasons for keeping this article. 1. It is discussing an issue that has been described by many researchers as the biggest controversy in Tibetan Buddhism today. 2. This issue is of particular importance this year due to the increased actions against DS practitioners in India and the resulting protests. So it is a topical issue. 3. Wikipedia is an ideal forum for discussing this because it forces both sides in the debate to 'find common ground', instead of further radicalization. In this way, it accomplishes an important social function of promoting reconcilation. 4. The only reason why these articles keep coming up for deletion is one side or another doesn't like the contents of it. If somebody doesn't like the contents of the article then they should go to the talk pages, explain what they want to change, justify their changes and then make the changes. THen through dialogue and negotiation we change the article. 5. The real problem here is some people have not accepted the fact that Wikipedia is 'an encylopedia' and not 'an ideological battleground'. Our job here is to write an informative encylopedia article which presents both sides of the controversy so that somebody who is unaware of this issue can become better informed. If we all agree on this goal, we can write an article. But as long as extremist editors come on here and try to sabotage or use Wikipedia as a battleground for advancing their own agenda, we will keep having to waste our time with these silly games (like this deletion request). I think we all have better things to do with our lives than engage in such games. So lets agree that our goal is to write an informative encylopedia article, work together to write one, and then go back to our families (or direct our attention to other articles). Please, accept what Wikipedia is (an encylopedia) and what it isn't (a battleground) and work in harmony with what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. --Dspak08 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "This article is not a POV fork. We separated the two articles along the lines of 'political controversy' and 'the deity itself'." That's pretty much the definition of a content-based POV fork right there. Controversy that can be sourced with reliable sources and presented in a NPOV way (so as not to give undue weight) should be on the main page. DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a keeper to me. It's very heavily sourced, and far too long to merge back into the main article without weighing it down. (That isn't by itself a pro-forkery comment, by the way, I'd make the same objection if someone proposed that Hamlet should be merged into William Shakespeare.) The relevant guideline is at WP:SS which says (I'm paraphrasing) that if an aspect of a subject gets too big for the parent article you break it out into another article. Those alleging POV-fork don't seem to have explained, above, what POV they think this article is pushing, as distinct from the POV (or NPOV) of the main article. If someone can do that I may reconsider my !vote. AndyJones (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not ideal, but who has a better idea for how to handle this? It certainly isn't a POV fork and, given the rancour around the issue in general, it's commendably neutral. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per both Andies. Sourced, NPOV, and a legitimate spinoff that keeps the main article from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - first, the controversy could probably be summarized in a couple of paragraphs. More importantly, this version is irredeemably POV. Just look at the "Arguments for and against the practice" section, for instance - one doesn't write an encyclopedia article like that. Biruitorul Talk 04:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * the controversy could probably be summarized in a couple of paragraphs Please do so! I'd love to read it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 Keep''' - Definately too much information in the controversy to absorb into a general article on Dorje Shugden. The controversy background should also be addressed seperately from the deity itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.201.246 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless some form of sense and structure is put in place. The whole tone of the article is just suspect too. Manderiko (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The Controversy is quite important in the Tibetan Buddhist community. It is not confined to Dorje Shugden alone but has wider implications, e.g. regarding the history of and the attitude towards the New Kadampa Tradition. The article on the NKT links here. The information on the controversy can not be integrated in the article on the NKT and also not in that on Dorje Shugden. A seperate article is fully justified. Andi 77.24.174.253 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2008 (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.