Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zen centers in the United States


 * 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; will userfy to allow for fixing. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Zen centers in the United States

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

Delete The article is written like advertisement. The name of centers are given and their addresses and phone numbers are also given. This is clear form of advertisement. The list is not needed as article, this is what categories are for. So the name of the notable centers should be categorized. A category like Category:Zen centers in the United States can be created for notable centers. At its present form, the article is completely unencyclopedic and advertisement. Wikipedia is not directory.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Valuable resource for those interested in Zen Buddhism. (Mind meal (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Delete On second thought, you all are right. My heart was in the right place, though. (Mind meal (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC))


 * You missed my reasonings. Wikipedia is not directory.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are too quick to judge this article; references are to come. I don't see why you would think this article detracts from Wikipedia in any way, shape or form. Lots of energy has gone into this. (Mind meal (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. Wikipedia is not a phonebook. - Jahnx ( talk ) 09:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I change my mind, there really is no reason for this to be in a list. I agree a category is suitable. - Jahnx ( talk ) 09:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Zen centers exists. This article is an excellent resource, and for some strange reason the one thing holding it back is the additional, more comprehensive information provided: i.e. addresses and phone numbers. Had I not taken the time to improve this article with those details, this would have never been nominated. Yet another case of bureaucracy interfering with the beneficial availability of information. (Mind meal (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Delete per WP:NOT. JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A complete bureaucratic waste of time. Furthermore, this is a list, not a directory. It just happens to be a more comprehensive list than most. Ignore (Mind meal (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Delete per WP:NOT. "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." Deor (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article provides a directory and not encyclopaedic content. Cloudz679 (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is most certainly not a directory or collection of links to non-notable websites or organisations. There are much more appropriate places online for this to be hosted.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, vios WP:NOT UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- But with some tweaking. I think that the author should somehow list the significance of the lineages in each center. Being Buddhism has what is called Dharma succession the listing of each heir and teacher at the center is possibly more in-line with what wikipedia is looking for. If you remove the phone numbers and addresses but have the link to their site then that may give less of an appearance of "phone book" and more of an encyclopedic reference. It is important (to Buddhists or those researching it) to know what line (Dharma heir) a particular center holds. The reason for this is Buddhism can trace its entire lineage all the way back to Shakyamuni Buddha, its sort of like tracing from the Pope back to Jesus. The author has listed the current abbot of each center and their lineage and maybe this may be more a use for this list and not appearing as an advertisement.Golgofrinchian (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. I don't think it looks like an advertisement. However, Wikipedia is not a directory. This information appears to have been ripped from Buddhanet.net and other similar sites, then dumped on Wikipedia. This is unacceptable. Considering the fact that Eastern European geographical entries and similarly dubious content are being spammed onto Wikipedia en masse, this article appears to be good enough to belong in Wikipedia, by its very low community standards. However, not good enough to belong in an actual ** encyclopedia** , with reasonable standards, which we must work towards hopefully maybe establishing, someday in the distant future. Lists like these (i.e. List of LGBT couples) don't belong in a credible, legitimate encyclopedia and should be deleted immediately. If a certain Zen center is notable (there appear to be several on that list with articles on them), you can add them to Category:Zen centers and Category:Buddhist temples in the United States, if they aren't already there. Also, for obvious reasons, I'm a neutral party here. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates policy and good article structure guidelines.  A web directory is where something liek this belongs. 2005 (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete. Userfy.  Move to User:Golgofrinchian/List of Zen centers in the United States.  This is clearly part of a worthy effort to expand the encyclopedia, its just not publication-ready, and in the meantime it is a useful development aid for the user and the WikiProject.

Appears to violate WP:NOT. I see two possible justifications for such a directory like listing. One is that it is a navigational aid that links to the Zen centers. This assumes that there is further coverage elsewhere in wikipedia on each, or at least most, of the Zen centers listed here (not necessarily single articles on each, but further coverage). This seems not to be the case. The other justification is that there are independent secondary sources demonstrating interest in an authoritative coverage of Zen centers. This is possible, though such sources haven’t been provided. Are there books or articles on the expansion of Zen centres?

Speaking against the suitability of this list is the fact that it is confined to a single country, one not central to Zen nor particular important in the history of Zen, and the fact that there is not a list of Zen centers in the world.

In the end, wikipedia need to contain content saying something about these centers before it is justified to have a directory like listing heavily populated by external links to websites affiliated with the centers. I'm all for navigational aids, but the content has to be there first. If there is a genuine effort to expand coverage of individual centers, then I would support moving the list into Project or User space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:28, 11 March 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.