Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tachikawa-ryu (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tachikawa-ryu
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has serious reliability and verifiability problems. The overwhelming majority of this article traces back to John Stevens who is not reliable. Mr. Stevens believes that Tachikawa-ryu persists to this very day as some sort of secret underground sex cult. Additionally Stevens’s “Tantra of the Tachikawa Ryu” is a work of erotic fiction and certainly not a reliable source. The Tachikawa-ryu article on Japanese Wikipedia may or may not have reliable sources, but they aren’t doing this article any good, and there’s no indication that they ever will.

Additionally, parts of the article are written from such a ridiculously in-universe perspective as to be totally incomprehensible. This article has been tagged for years; it’s high time it got deleted. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 02:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  02:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Adds Japanese, and definitely reveals multiple books and news dedicated to the school (on various stances, I might add). It should be noted that I find after a cursory read that sourcing here is much deficient compared with the vast amount of text in the body. I have no objection to a WP:TNT to start over if editors with expertise here thinks so.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 04:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The same argument was made during the last deletion discussion four years ago. Since then these allegedly reliable sources have not found their way into the article.  If there are no editors with the language skills, willingness, and competence to fix the article then all the sources on Earth aren’t going to help.  Should we really keep a bad article around indefinitely because it might get better?  76.107.171.90 (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just added two external links and three literary sources, one of them by the renowned Buddhologist Faure. Otaku00 (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read those “two external links and three literary sources” before you put them into the article? In the PDF you linked to the author argues that the manuscripts which can definitely be traced to Tachikawa-ryu do not include any “perverse” teachings.  He argues that the skull ritual and other sexual elements attributed to Tachikawa-ryu were wrongly attributed to it and that they should, instead, be attributed to a different unnamed school.  The PDF that you linked to directly contradicts the article as it currently exists.  It suggests that virtually nothing is known about Tachikawa-ryu except its name, the name of its founder, the date of its founding, and that it was heterodox.  If anything this seems to make an even stronger case for deletion because the current article doesn’t describe Tachikawa-ryu, instead it describes the unnamed school that Tachikawa-ryu is wrongly conflated with.  76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

''' I wish to withdraw the nomination. ' The article is in terrible condition, but I now believe that the state of the scholarship is such that it might '' permit a small but encyclopedic article to be written about Tachikawa-ryu. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:54, 27 June 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.