Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samu (Zen)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Samu (Zen)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Deprodded with useless edit summary of "expandable". I don't see anything to expand it with though; is this notable? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Gbooks for the words Samu mindfulness Zen finds 121 hits, including the following:
 * "Even today samu occupies a central place in Zen life"
 * Is this notable? Did you try it?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this notable? Did you try it?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this notable? Did you try it?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no rationale for deletion, the non-rationale has been challenged once, and this discussion has been relisted for a third week?  The correct closing was on February 11 as SK WP:NPASR.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable per my comments above. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep term crops up a lot in writings on Buddhism. As a philosophical/theological concept there should be enough to say about it to make an article.  Not clear as to the grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep philosophical concepts in religions are generally notable, and there is generally no shortage of sources, though many of them lurk in the obscurity of print. /For a short article, expandable, which I gave as the reason for deprodding, is an applicable consideration for whether to treat separately or to merge--I think it a perfectly reasonable justification for keeping, and one we frequently use.  DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 3 March 2012 (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.