Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fazhengnian (2nd nomination)


 * 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. After discounting the several opinions by people evidently unfamiliar with our inclusion standards, what remains is experienced users disagreeing in good faith whether this should be covered as a standalone article or in the context of another related article.  Sandstein  10:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fazhengnian
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article qualifies for speedy deletion per G4. That is, it is substantially similar to an article that was deleted via a deletion discussion in September, and has not address the problems that led to the first deletion. In particular, the creator has failed to demonstrated that this concept has garnered more than a trivial mention in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—that being the basic condition of notability for a stand-alone article. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note from admin who declined G4 nomination: I disagree that this article qualifies for G4, considering the extensive debate that ensued on the talk page after the speedy deletion nomination was contested. The sheer volume of discussion suggested that the G4 nomination wasn't uncontroversial, so I declined it, suggesting a new AFD be opened. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 3.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  03:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * keep: These artical is well translation and should be kept.And I thing some Falungong personail will hate it,BUT it is proved to be truth.Warning,some personail seems to be pay special atttentions to articals about Falungong.I thought they would be have some relationship(especially for money)with some kind of group.--Edouardlicn (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept of "fazhengnian" probably deserves a mention in the Falun Gong article. HOWEVER: You have not provided any arguments for keeping the article. Being a translation is irrelevant, and not a reason to keep. If some Falun Gong people hate it, that is also irrelevant, and not a reason to keep. If the article might be true, that is also not a reason to keep, because verifiability, not truth matters more on Wikipedia &mdash; and I understand the community has established that the Chinese government is not a reliable source of information about Falun Gong. Finally, financial motives implied about editors who monitor Falun Gong articles are not appropriate and come near violating the policy forbidding personal attacks. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well,I'm just talking something about money,lol.But I thing I should be kept.or at lease merge to Falungong . --Edouardlicn (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * delete: As per previous discussion, "quality, third party sources to show notability" are still wanting in this version. Wikipedia policies and guidelines have specific requirements for sources. Previous rationale to delete still holds water. --Hanteng (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the movement's article and then lock. That or delete and salt.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with Falun Gong. This article is short, just a handful of sentences. I see no reason why a sentence or two couldn't be salvaged for inclusion in the parent article and be done with it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC) The article has improved a great deal since nominated for AFD, and its sourcing may now merit keeping. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, for failing to meet WP:GNG. There does not appear to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to write a complete or balanced article on this topic (most of the information currently in the article is cited to sources that are not reliable and/or not independent). If scholarly articles are produced in the future that offer a more detailed explanation of this concept and its role in falungong, then it can be revisited. — Zujine |talk 00:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge any reliably sourced content with Falun Gong and keep title as a Redirect. First Light (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * keep: some small even tiny articles are existing at enwp. But article like Fazhengnian, which is the well-know signal of Falun Gong failing to meet WP:GNG? Is here has different criterions for things from different culture?--AddisWang (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Though I'm not going to get involved in this war.--Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 07:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions on this topic seem to draw in lots of participation from users for whom zh-wiki is their primary account, and maybe that's why there's always some confusion about which policies are relevant. I'm not sure if zh-wiki has different general notability guidelines, but ours can be found here. This isn't a cultural issue, and neither is a matter of liking or disliking the subject matter. I don't think anyone disputes that fazhengnian is a real thing of importance to falungong practitioners. But there is simply not currently enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for a stand-alone article (which is why it was already merged with Falun Gong after the last AfD). — Zujine |talk 13:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wonder why the article should be rebuilt after a consensus of deletion.--Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 11:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A good question that probably doesn't have a good answer. The Blue Canoe  03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or merge with Falun Gong, somewhat notable but lacks neutral deep-in references. Keep, improved. -- Make  cat  08:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - This looks more like a spell, what with the hand motions and the words. Is it intended as such? -- Auric    Talk  18:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep- Aparently it is a word blocked in Chinese internet. If the Chinese government is wanting to stifle it then I presume it is notable. ok HAN? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello User:PortlandOregon97217, please give your arguments because here "consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes".--Hanteng (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing your argument. Chinese government block many kinds of keywords at different times for different reasons, I am not sure it is a reliable or accepted source of deciding notability according to WP:N. I am not sure if all blocked keywords automatically merit an encyclopedia article because of the chinadigitaltimes source you provide. Perhaps you want to further expand your argument? --Hanteng (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The article evolved substantially, since it was submitted for the AfD review. Do we still need to Carthago delenda est and salt the ground? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete. In addition to the "fazhengnian" meditation, Falun Gong has five other meditation/qigong exercises. I would wager that there is more written about each of those exercises in reliable sources than there is about fazhengnian (which is not mentioned at all in the leading books on Falun Gong),  yet I don't think anyone would argue that they each need their own article.  Just take one or two more well sourced sentences from this page and merge with main article. I can volunteer to do this, depending on the outcome of this discussion. The Blue Canoe  16:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Commented Here is the list of what might appear as solid scholar secondary reliable sources currently used to support the article:
 * Comment: You've done a commendable job finding additional sources --I think you've likely discovered every reliable source there is that mentions it, save maybe one or two, and I think it would be worthwhile to take a couple sentences from you've added and integrate it into the parent article. It had already been established during the last AfD that there are some mentions of this concept in reliable sources, but these are evidently minor mentions, and not enough to establish notability for a stand-alone article per the relevant Wikipedia guideline, to wit: "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The key word here is significant. If we actually examine how much attention Fazhengnian received in the sources you've cited, it's minimal, typically not exceeding a few sentences, and many of those mentions are redundant in terms of their content. As other editors have noted, the most authoritative books on Falun Gong's teachings and practices don't talk about this subject at all, which doesn't bode well for establishing its significance, and also means that we're lacking the kind of in-depth, balanced analysis that would be necessary for this article to have real value on its own. This is not to misunderstand the obvious significance of the ritual to the FLG, but it appears for now that like the other meditations, exercises, spells, teachings etc etc of Falun Gong, this should be simply be briefly summarized in the Teachings of Falun Gong article, and still doesn't seem to warrant separate treatment. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I should correct my previous comment. I checked again one of the leading books on Falun Gong (David Ownby's).  He actually does mention the fazhengnian practice once. It takes up all of half a sentence, so it was easy to miss. But that seems to reinforces the point that it's a trivial mention. The Blue Canoe  03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As a concept of Falun gong for ten years.It should not be part of Teachings of Falun Gong,and a new way that Falun gong itself struggle with Chinese govenment.It is completely outstanding significant.And if you suggest to merge to Teachings of Falun Gong,it will be unproperbly.--Edouardlicn (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it is similar (at least in appearance) to some of Falun Gong's other meditation exercises, but another idea is to merge to Falun_Gong.  The Blue Canoe  04:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As there are so many evidences and content,why merge?--Edouardlicn (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even after the additional sources were added, I'm actually still not seeing that there's really so much evidence and useful content here. As I said, I think more has been written in reliable sources about each of the five other Falun Gong exercises, but to me, common sense dictates that they shouldn't have their own articles just because there's lots of coverage of them. None of the secondary sources cited cover fazhengnian in much depth, and many describe it in one- or two-sentence mentions. If you took out all the material in this article that is repetitive (whole paragraphs repeat), irrelevant or insufficiently sourced interpretations by other editors, you would still end up with only a few sentences or a couple short paragraphs of useable material, and that's if you really stretch it. Now, maybe that's good enough—there might be enough properly sourced information to provide a basic explanation of what fazhengnian is without having to do original research to fill in the blanks. But if that information can be concisely summarized, I don't see why it shouldn't just be merged. Either way, it needs major improvements yet. The Blue Canoe  12:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I !voted delete at the previous AfD. The article is much fuller, and I think sufficient shows the notability. I gather the objection is that the article is written in such a way as to ridicule the practice and the movement. I think perhaps the description of how people claim to have used it for what is inappropriately selective, and may rely on sources that might be unfair. (I note that this possibly biased content was the entire content of the previous version). This can & should be fixed by editing.  DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm quite tempted to agree with this view. The only issue is that if we were to delete all the primary sources, there would only be half a dozen sentences from sundry academic papers left - not enough for an article. It would be good if someone actually did a proper study of this FLG ritual. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I share User:TheSoundAndTheFury's assessment. I have been asking for substantial third-party secondary sources (one would be at the very least required) so that other non-third-party primary sources can be partially supported by this third-party secondary sources. Since the content of this article, as Zujine has mentioned above, has been merged into the Falungong article, I would suggest that editors who want this entry to revive wait for one or two substantial third-party secondary sources published, otherwise I do not think the current sources are enough for a stand-alone article. --Hanteng (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have again checked the sources to see if there is any significant improvement for a keep argument. So far, none of the third-party secondary sources have specifically addressed the ritual with substantial accounts. For instance, the new Penny Benjamin's lecture provides few short mentions of "righteous" paths etc., which altogether does not amount to the ritual "Fazhengnian" itself. Note that this lecture focuses on the "body" of Master Li as a neglected research area, not about Fazhengnian rituals and concepts. So the source's support for this "Fazhengnian" ritual or concept is at best tangential, thereby not enough to support a standalone encyclopedic article (unless the article is on The Body of Master Li.

-Hanteng (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentIt seems that Hanteng(That was used blocked in chn wiki by editing chn version of No original research ITSELF,just for deletion of Chn's Fazhengnian,see here)and some users are overusing Primary Source as their del reason.I repeat several times about "Chinese govenment's source is not a primary source at all".--Edouardlicn (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that what hanteng said is really reliable?Or he is trying to treat westener who don't know Chinese?--Edouardlicn (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is peculiar that User:Edouardlicn chose to criticize a Wikipedian (me) in this dicussion that is based on the merits of the arguments, not individual Wikipedian's credibility.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that, User:Edouardlicn has been blocked several times because of his actions on the zh talk page on Fazhengnian, which is directly related to the delete discussion here. Please note all four blocks listed the reason for the blocks due to "無禮的行為、攻擊別人" (lack of Etiquette, personal attacks):

2012年9月7日 (五) 05:50 治愈（討論 | 貢獻）更改Edouardlicn（討論 | 貢獻）的封禁設置，到期時間爲3天（禁止此IP/使用者建立新帳號） （無禮的行為、攻擊別人：于Talk:发正念,违反WP:NPA；使用多个傀儡绕过封禁，经申诉后改为封禁3日. ）

2012年9月6日 (四) 14:55 Jimmy xu wrk（討論 | 貢獻）更改Edouardlicn（討論 | 貢獻）的封禁設置，到期時間爲2012年12月6日 (四) 09:01（禁止此IP/使用者建立新帳號） （無禮的行為、攻擊別人：于Talk:发正念,违反WP:NPA；使用多个傀儡绕过封禁）

2012年8月31日 (五) 16:55 Jimmy xu wrk（討論 | 貢獻）更改Edouardlicn（討論 | 貢獻）的封禁設置，到期時間爲1周（禁止此IP/使用者建立新帳號） （無禮的行為、攻擊別人：于Talk:发正念,违反WP:NPA；使用匿名用户绕过封禁）

2012年8月31日 (五) 09:49 Kegns（討論 | 貢獻）「Edouardlicn（討論 | 貢獻）」（禁止此IP/使用者建立新帳號）已被查封，終止時間為3天 （無禮的行為、攻擊別人：于Talk:发正念,违反WP:NPA）

Note that 'Talk:发正念'(zh) is equivalent talk page of Talk:Fazhengnian(en). WP:NPA is mentioned for each block.

I mentioned these four recorded incidents not to futher inflame the discussion here, but rather hoped that User:Edouardlicn can recognize the fact that the afd discussion here is based on the merits of the argument, and that User:Edouardlicn, like all other Wikipedians, can continue to help the discussions here by providing valid sources and cliams to pursuade other Wikkipedians in this discussion. --Hanteng (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: As for user:Edouardlicn's claim on the block on my account, the actual record is here, I personally thank those who support me during the what I and some Chinese Wikipedians think is unfair decision on the short block. Note that User:AddisWang who decided to block me made a mistake in blocking me for 7 days and then revert back to two days. Whether this block controversy (on better translation of zh version of WP:NOR) can be related to what user:Edouardlicn described as my own narrow consipiracy to adovocate for deletion for Fazhengnian article is open to public examinization and interpretations. I believe that any sensible Wikipedians, when reading my edit records in both en and zh Wikipedias, will find that I am interested in enforcing Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding sources, including appropriately using templates such as thirdparty and primarysources, and making them clearer and better to match what is written in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This ongoing efforts are directly related to the relevant discussion here on whether there are substantial reliable sources to support this article.

Here in the article page, I took the effort by adding a few such templates (thirdparty and primarysources -inline templates), hoping that these issues can be addressed properly so that those who want to keep the articles can know where to start to enhance the article, with necessary links pointing to talk page for discussion. However, all these templates are quickly removed by user:Edouardlicn without further discussion and addressing the issues on the talk page. I am not sure if it is accepted practice (removing other Wikipedians' added templates such as primary and thirdparty inline templates without actually addressing or refuting the issues on the talk pages, but I find it to be rather unnacceptable editing behaviours to do so.

I wish those who want to keep the articles good luck in finding substantial third-party secondary sources to support this article. However, I do not think what user:Edouardlicn has done so far is acceptable when it comes to removing other Wikipedian's template without addressing the issues raised (e.g. third party and primary sources inline). --Hanteng (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, improved a lot so far. Others are the same as my reasons in the last afd.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I assert that it would be easier to find sources if the Chinese government didn't censor the word. Since it's root is presumably Chinese I would imagine there is but a trickle of info leaving China about it. If this is true then I would have to presume it is notable. And as for the user who was banned in chinese wiki for editing I am not surprised. Not surprised in a bad way. The saddest part is Wikipdia's mantra is verifiability over truth. This makes me sad deep inside.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying your argument. You might want to separate the issue of the article List of blacklisted keywords in the People's Republic of China from the issue of this article (or notability issue, in relation to the lack of substantial third-party sources). Again, Chinese government blocks many kinds of keywords at different times for different reasons, I am not sure it is a reliable or accepted source of deciding notability according to WP:N. I am not sure if all blocked keywords automatically merit an encyclopedia article because of the chinadigitaltimes source you provide (Self-discousure: I met and knew the people who run this website on several occasions). I would like to believe that if such Wikipedia articles for some of the blocked words do exist and survive, they do so mainly because of their foundation of reliable sources (per Wikipedia policies), not because of these words are blocked by Chinese authorities. --Hanteng (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think their censorship is so much about the word itself, but the whole idea of something. I assume you are not only able to talk about the word, but the whole idea of the word and all that it encompasses. But that is neither here nor there, and it is also why I cut my arguement short. I realise this is a very sensitive topic, and if I were a Chinese citizen and found to have participated in this conversation would be subjected to forced labor at best. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, important concept of Falungong. 南蠻北夷東狄西戎不懂中华文化的精妙，这像话吗？Daveduv (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral, i updated the Fazhengnian procedure according to original source and delete CCP Kaifengwang' intentional misleading source. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to Marvin 2009, Please understand that what you consider to be "original sources" are not reliable third-party independent sources, and hence your change of position from delete to neutral does not seem to consider the main issue here: Do we have substantial reliable third-party independent sources to support this article? Please provide such sources if you can find one. --Hanteng (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * comment:Hanteng,is you be blocked in zh wiki and you troll there,any evidence make you looks like wrong.OK then,you can still be here and keep trooling eng wiki,in here,seems that no one can stop you to del this artical just for your angry.--Edouardlicn (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: Please focus on the "merits of the arguments" so the concensus can be better reached. --Hanteng (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2013 (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.