Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lu Sheng-yen


 * 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. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Lu Sheng-yen
I feel that there is no way that this article can be maintained in any proper way which is WP:NPOV or WP:V. The subject is a self-styled religious leader who claims to be a perfectly enlightened Buddha. There is no official training which can be sourced anywhere, so his claims of mastering texts cannot be seconded by any other religious authorities. The only sources are the official website of his organisation, which cannot be considered to be at all reliable or neutral (the other source available is simply a reprint of the stated info on his website for a religion report) - the only other info is a pile of attack blogs about his alleged rape of a disciple or other pages by random groups critical of his claims. So the only sources are himself, which could only lead to a hagiography of a religious leader who is already making grandiose claims. This person is very notable, but there is no way that an article could be NPOV, unless it also uses attack blogs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So it is ok to talk slander GM Lu, Blnguyen? All we have is pictures of Master Lu being honored at the Tibetan Monestaries in Tibet, my personal witness of Ganden Tri Rinpoche (among others) honoring Master Lu. What kind of proof are you looking for? Can you give me MahaRishi Mahesh Yogi's "verafiable" authenticity? What kind of proof do you need? You say you cannot stand that Master Lu's page is talking highly of the True Buddha School but you think its ok to emphasize a womans rediculous claim that she was rapped by him? Ok did you know that HH Kalu Rinpoche (whom I have a picture of him honoring Master Lu) was accused of being raped by an american journalist? In his Biography it lightly mentions this but does not focus on that in his webpage. What kind of "proof" do you have of Buddha even existing other than millions of followers? He is one of the most popular sects in Taiwan and an enormous benefactor of charities and was accused ONE TIME of sexual misconduct and you think this should be the focus of his bio? All of his claims of having lineage can be backed up by photographs (that have been tested for authenticity). Why dont you look up the pro TBS blogs are ask a local TBS chapter instead of having a preconcieved, close minded bias. Have some respect for people you might not agree with. Its called human decency. Because Blnguyen doesnt believe! then we should all think like him and slander who he doesnt believe in. Give me a break! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.147.126 (talk • contribs)


 * Speedy Keep - leader of one of the largest Buddhist sect in Taiwan. There not being any critical sources is not a reason for deletion. Living persons are not to be subjected to random attacks from blogs. If there is a real problem, it will be reported in real media. It is WP's job to report the facts that can be reported, and refrain from libelling living persons. &mdash;Hanuman Das 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - what sources do we have apart from his own organisation or self-styled-debunking blogs? None - If someone claims to be a Buddha you can't use their own website as a source. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you can report a claim as a claim. And the article doesn't say that he is a Living Buddha - it says his students revere him as such. I don't see a problem here. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, which is exactly why you place a  tag on it if you feel it is not in a NPOV. T REX speak 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - Err, no, the only sources available are his own organisation or attack blogs, which leaves us with no sources that are independent per WP:V or those which do not have WP:BLP problems. If I wrote my own website claiming to be God and wrote an article myself would that be permissible? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - no valid reason given for deletion. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is way too noisey. All of the sources are created by his organization like mentioned above. I could also be claiming that I am Shakyamuni Buddha's reincarnation (founder of buddhism) and create a website, write books, publish magazines, and record videos. At the end stating the reason for not being recoginzed is because no one has reached this level yet. It's funny and rediculus. The other link you should delete is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheng-yen_Lu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Buddha_School Purebuddhist — Purebuddhist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - This person claims he is a Living Buddha under Buddhism without any supporting documentation and is not recognized by any other Buddhist group. True Buddha School Doctrine are based on Taoist theory, which passed on by Toaist God: Golden Mother, which Lu publically announced. (a Buddhist organization not honor Buddha Shakymuni, but honor Golden Mother) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharma777 (talk • contribs) — Dharma777 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - Simply too many cover ups from the TBS followers who come to this particular article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.154.110 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep per Hanuman Das -999 (Talk) 14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hanuman Das He merits a mention in Seattle Weekly, a respected publication. . This can also be used to support a controversies section. A simple google search yielded this right away. Sylvain1972 20:09, 31 October 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.