Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Soka Association


 * 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. Nakon 01:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Singapore Soka Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The reason why I nominated this article for deletion is that this article contain too many primary source. On top of that, the main page Soka Gakkai had undergo a lot of changes which had improved the said article with relevant citation. Hence this article can be deleted and be merged to the main organisation article. Kelvintjy (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 8.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 14:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment – It's not only based on primary sources, it reads like it too. But I'm not sure about merging it into the main Soka Gakkai article, as that is already very long. There is a good deal of material about it from scholars. Metraux has written a whole book about it, and there is a whole chapter about in this book . Plus journal articles. I would be more interested in seeing it improved from sources like that. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2015 (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.