Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition Survivors


 * 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. Several contributors have pointed out that there is little content to this article. Besides an extended quotation from the group's statement (which I am pretty sure is against guidelines on length of quote) the entire article says no more than the group exists. As it stands, it would qualify for speedy deletion criterion A7 (no indication of importance). It is certainlya valid AFD deletion rationale that there is insufficient material to write about a subject to justify its own aritcle, a position taken by several contributors. This argument still holds sway regardless of any decision on notability. On that issue by itself I assess the debate as no consensus leaning to delete, but the lack of content issue certainly sways this to delete. SpinningSpark 18:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

New Kadampa Tradition Survivors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not an encyclopedia article, but advocacy. perhaps it might fall under G11.  DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Per G11, There is no content here worthy of being on the encyclopedia. The only source I found that may justify the article is this from the Huffington post. Fails WP:GROUP as the rest of the sources I found were wordpress sources.-- Church  Talk 19:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep We have a reliable source from top tibetologist Robert Thurman talking about the group. Also we have this academic conference. Tell me how to edit the article to make is less advocacy. VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * :He only mentions the NKTS once in that article, and it was speaking more broadly about the criticisms about the Dalai Lama then the group itself. Likewise with the other Huffington Post article I found. I just don't see enough here to justify it's own article.-- Church  Talk 19:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have 2 Huffingtonpost articles, one written by a top tibetologist. Also we have the academic conference I linked to above. That is more than enough to justify an article. VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, none of them seem to talk about the organization directly. Rather just criticisms of the Dalai Lama (Which I'm sure has it's own article).-- Church  Talk 20:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean none of them seem to talk about the organization directly. Robert Thurman quotes 4 paragraphs of the NKTS statement. How much more direct can you get?VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. After reviewing the article better I agree this should be a Keep The first Huffington Post article mentions the NKTS specifically and criticizes a number of actions. Apologies, I should have read better. -- Church  Talk 20:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to the NKT article - no meat to the article, and none likely to be found. Collect (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The user VictoriaGrayson attacks anything about the NKT on Wikipedia repeatedly and has been doing so since early June. This is another example. Two citations in the whole of the internet does not seem notable. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Its has been pointed out by other users that Prasangika37 has possible COI's. I would advise his input is not valid in determining consensus.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, the thing is two days old, for chrissake, let the creator work on it and expand it a bit. Also keep for these reasons:
 * 1) As far as the topic goes, it is clearly GNG:  Searches for "NKT Survivors" renders this, New Kadampa Survivors (without quotes) gets this and a complex search still rendered a number of reliable sources.
 * 2) This is an article about people who have left a religious organization and who have issues that appear to stem, in part, from their experience. To that end, this article is well within a broader category of articles about entities that oppose various new religious movements, including Cult Awareness Network, INFORM, Category:Critics of the Unification Church, Personal Freedom Outreach, Cults of Unreason, and so on.
 * 3) I think it is also worth noting that this topic is controversial and per the personal attack by Prasangika37 on Victoria Grayson above, please note that Prasangika37 has tended to want to eliminate or minimize any mention of criticisms of the NKT, while Victoria Grayson tends to take a view from the side of mainstream Tibetan Buddhism (which is critical of the NKT), so let's just count the input of each as one !vote each and move on.  Montanabw (talk)  23:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

They are a Yahoo group.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 01:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge (into New Kadampa Tradition, where it belongs, if anywhere). I'm not seeing that this is an actual official organization -- there is no website linked at the bottom, no Google hits under that title. And only 45 Google hits under "New Kadampa Survivors" and only 66 for "NKT Survivors" -- all of them blog and forum posts. Even if there were an informal collection of dissident former members, informal collections of dissident former members of any sect or group or even cult do not merit Wikipedia articles. Does not pass WP:GNG or any other notability requirement. Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I gather from discussions above that the creation of this article may have sprung from attempts by other editors to suppress criticism of NKT on that article's page. My !vote remains the same; however I suggest that the proper method to address any imbalance on the NKT article's POV is to enlist more eyes and redress the WP:NPOV problems of that article, including the lack of reporting what seems to be well-deserved and WP:RS criticism of the organization. There are proper channels to go through for this; unfortunately this article wasn't one and isn't merited. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy or draftify in part per Montanabw. What's here is clearly not ready for articlespace and is borderline G11. I have no opinion on notability, though my gut reaction is that a merge may be a good outcome. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I think there is nothing in the article in its current form that can be merged into New Kadampa Tradition, though that other article would seem to be the best place for any suitable new content on this subject. At the moment, the content of the New Kadampa Tradition Survivors article amounts to a statement and Wikipedia should not be a notice board for political or religious press releases. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article creator has moved the article to New Kadampa Survivors today, in the middle of this AfD debate. This further proves that this is not an official organization, but an invented title. Even under this new phrase, the new phrase only gets a handful of Google hits -- all of them blog and forum posts from the same blogs and forums over and over, plus now some WP mirrors. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That pretty much says it all. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:GROUP. Softlavender (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems then like the consensus is to delete? Can someone go ahead and do this? Its already included in the New Kadampa Tradition page to my knowledge. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Deletion debates run at least one week. And you do not get to decide what the consensus is -- an uninvolved admin does that. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Deletion debate aside, New Kadampa Survivors does seem to be what this group of people actually calls itself - so I think the move was justified on that grounds. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge - However if this were merged into New Kadampa Tradition, based on past history, it would inevitably lead to unending edit wars with activist NKT associated editors. Keeping the articles separate may slightly ameliorate that situation (otherwise my vote would simply be for Merge as putting the two together might help provide balance in the New Kadampa Tradition article). But this article is currently pretty rough and does urgently need a lot of work. If that cannot be done in the near future maybe userfy the article until that is acceptably taken care of. New Kadampa  Survivors is very new as an organised group so sources are bound to be thin for awhile. One of the founder "survivors" is extensively interviewed in an article in the book "Spiritual and Visionary Communities: Out to Save the World" Timothy Miller (ed.) - but that article was written and published before this group was formed. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AfD is a decision/discussion about whether an article meets Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. As far as I personally can tell, this forum group does not meet the two standards that apply: WP:GNG or WP:GROUP. AfD does not concern itself with future concerns about edit wars, etc. (and by the way nothing is "inevitable"), as there are a number of well-known official admin boards which effectively deal with that. Softlavender (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In its current state, I'd delete this wall of text, and start from scratch. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This group seems to be a social media hate group. Why would you want that merged into New Kadampa Tradition? If they have a beef, keep it separate or better yet, delete it altogether. Moon over manhattan (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, also lacks reliable sources, currently there are three refs to the same source which is supposed to be counted as one. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2014 (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.