Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pragmatic Buddhism


 * 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. If any user wishes a copy of the deleted article for later merging, they can either contact me directly or request the same of any administrator. Thanks   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  09:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Pragmatic Buddhism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is a mess of fatal problems. First, there is only one obscure organization (The Center for Pragmatic Buddhism) that claims to teach "Pragmatic Buddhism," and it is not the subject of the article. (There is also one other group (Unfettered Mind) which appears to make very limited use the phrase as a marketing slogan). The article is basically an editorial about what a speculative "Pragmatic Buddhism" encompasses or perhaps could encompass, by the author's standards of what is "pragmatic" and what isn't. It cites a number of scholars and organizations who the author apparently considers kindred spirits, none of whom self-identify as "Pragmatic Buddhists," - in many cases they just characterize Buddhism as pragmatic without even coming close to postulating anything called "Pragmatic Buddhism." The fact that "Pragmatic Buddhism" is a label with very limited currency is consequential, because in the absence of self-identified "Pragmatic Buddhists" the author is compelled to push a POV about which Buddhist groups and teachings are supposedly pragmatic and which, by exclusion, presumably are not. Needless to say, there are no Buddhist groups who consider their approaches to Buddhism "unpragmatic" - the whole exercise of trying to define a "Pragmatic Buddhism" in the absence of any significant movement actually utilizing the term is hopelessly POV.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, per the nomination above.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Weak "keep," maybe move it to Center for Pragmatic Buddhism? Not an orphan, see Ken McLeod. We have stupider articles. Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually moved it to Center for Pragmatic Buddhism once already (creating that article in the process). That effort was reversed. This article, however, does not seem to describe that center's teachings particularly; rather, it is a soapbox essay.Sylvain1972 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete or merge any nicely sourced material to Buddhist modernism, which this article links to. Thats a much better term instead of this one. Im tired of encyclopedia articles on buddhist, new age, etc writers where the content is overly detailed and uses lots of poorly defined psychological and spiritual terms. I cant get a sense of how notable a person is, or how they can be described by a neutral observer (oh, and i know thats actually not possible from a buddhist point of view: "open mouth, already a mistake".) This is from someone who loves and respects the subject.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:MADEUP. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:25, 10 December 2010 (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.