Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Feast of Immortal Peaches


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Feast of Immortal Peaches

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was nominated for speedy deletion, but I declined, as I have a feeling that this editor won't let it go peacefully. Thus I take it to AFD to get a clear consensus from the jury... SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It reads like a real article, but it could be a well-designed hoax. I am inclined to lean towards a "keep" vote, but I am not sure what the grounds for the dispute is.  A Google Search turns up some interesting results; it appears that the Immortal Peach Tree is a real concept and that the Feast of the Immortal Peaches (sometimes Feast of the Peaches Immortal) turns up in several real references in Chinese literature.  Since I don't read chinese, I find it hard to check the sources for the article, but without further reasoning from the nom, I can find nothing to object to yet.  I won't vote awaiting further information, but I am leaning towards a keep vote.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom due to a lack of verified-to-be reliable sources. Mmmmmmm, peaches.   Bur nt sau ce  17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment incined to delete, yes the immortal peach tree and the feast is a traditional element of Chinese mythology and culture ( peach shaped and coloured buns are still served at birthday banquets, and I'm convinced that this is neither OR or a hoax, however this article is not about the peach in traditional Chinese mythology or traditional Chinese immortals. The article claims that it is about a book compiled by mortals in 1934 AD under the instruction of Chinese immortals by means of sift text ( someone in a state of religous frenzy trance making marks in a sand pit, with someone else seeing what words he can see in the sand). This is a religous text of a modern taoist inspired cult (written it seems as a synthesis of traditional Chinese and Western beliefs). I haven't read properly the external link provided but I'm pretty sure that it will verify the claims of the article, but that wouldn't make the claims of either true. The thing about whether to keep this article or not is how notable the originating cult is? For example Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is not notable in and of itself, but notable because of its position within Scientology. KTo288 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)KTo288 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PLEASE KEEP- The Book is real enough, not a hoax, and it will stand up to more than a few checks. I implore Wiki-editorial team to exercize more latitute on English sources even though some were given- no English translation or website should not demean its existence.  What matters is the contents, which is NOT just about the 6,000 old Peaches, it's about creation and doomsday and more, worthwhile subjects that should be aired and possibly challenged.  As far as I have researched, this Book was not written by a living person.  I hope with similar articles, Wiki-readers like Kto288 can stop opining on what he/she does not quite know, Sift-text writers write in perfect lucidity, and sift text writing is NOT an Taoist inspired cult.  Not quite sure what place it has in Scientology, only that people who only reads English has a chance to know about it. ACHKC 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply:Typing in all caps, and using phrases like "this Book was not written by a living person" will not help your cause. Lets keep the arguements in the realm of rationality.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note I left a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taoism, at this article seems to have the same problem as Understanding Heaven and Hell--Victor falk 11:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, Victor.ACHKC 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless the cult/group involved is notable. --RaiderAspect 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with comments above that the Feast of Peaches is a notable element of Chinese mythology, but this article is not about that myth. It is about a non-notable book. I am voting for deletion because (1) no sources cited to show notability; (2) article is poorly written and from an in-world perspective; (3) as with Understanding Heaven and Hell, the book is in the form of a novel, and this article is largely written from an in-world perspective. (4) As a result, many statements appear to be factually untrue, e.g. the statements that it was written by a god, programmed by a bodhisatva, and edited by a Ming Dynasty immortal in 1934! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Zang Sanfeng was a verifiable historical figure from the 16th Century. His role with this book was similar to Guan Yin, no contradictions. Whether it was feasible that Guan Yin & Zang came together to do this book in 1934CE would be a different question about the text. I would very much  like to know how PalaceGuard could assess the book in comment(2) above, and should he/she read Chinese, will note the best and the classical Chinese literature were written in novel i.e. Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Fengsen Yanyi, Journey to the West etc. The in-world perspective is precisely one of the substance to be read and shared.ACHKC 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A question As it written in modern Chinese in novel form, is there any possibility it might be something akin to Beowulf's saga novelised and written in modern English?--Victor falk 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite, and no. There is a list of recognized guidance books from taoist & buddhist library that eventually I hope to introduce to Wikipedia in English, that togther will give a very holistic picture of both religions on top of what the sutras and their canons say.  Admittedly one of the main problem as I see it is that taoist adherents lacks scholars much less western scholars; admist its unorganized adherents many had embraced other forms of beliefs without thoroughly understanding what taoism is or is about, before abandonment.  Hence many scholarly work will stop short at the definition of dao or what Tao Tejing is.ACHKC 04:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd say its no more untrue or unverifiable than any other book written in a state of Divine inspiration whether by burning bushes, voices in the desert, gold tablets and magic glasses or million year old alien spirts passing by dentist surgeries. These kind of books cannot be proven untrue or verified this side of heaven,however what we can decide is if these books have a real and notable effect on the world, people and popular culture. I apologise if I've caused offense because I used the word "cult", but similar works are notable because their attached organisations are notable. ACHKC I'm not saying scientology is related to this book I was using it as an example, for illustrations sake, may be I should spell my reasoning out: by itself "Dianetics" is just another crackpot book probably not notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, it has an article because the organisation it is attached to is notable, attracting numerous and wealthy adherents, building up a large financial portfolio, has been covered in popular culture, has attracted controversy, and the ire and attentions of governments.


 * As it is "The Feast of Immortal Peaches" article has failed to show that it has had a real world impact, I don't know what the exact notability guidelines for religious sects is, but if it can be shown that "The Feast of Immortal Peaches" has a significant following, been instrumental in historical events, been the subject of irrational government persecution etc than it may just maybe notable enough for inclusion.KTo288 15:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A jest about the Scientology, no offense taken Kto288 whatsoever. A similar example would be the new gospels dug up in upper Egypt in the 70s/80s- are these part of the revelations? It will take time to sort out some of the questions mentioned by you, appreciated.ACHKC 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As an aside if this AfD goes against this article it might be worth opening an AfD for Guan Shengdi, which also asserts a knowledge of recent changes in the Celestial bureaucracy. KTo288 15:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, mind-blowing if you follow its persuasion, I've made some adjustment to the chinese myth pages accordingly. I mentioned to the wiki-editors that for this reason this and many other books like it should be included in the English wiki-library, it will begin to make sense as some of these come online later, irrespective of your religiosity or views on doomsday.ACHKC 03:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is anyone watching the Chinese mythology pages? Someone needs to look out for these edits. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The in-world perspective is a major problem. What I mean by "in-world perspective" is that the article is presenting as fact the claims made by the book. These claims are most likely to be intended to be fictional, given that the book is in novel form. Even if they are not intended to be fictional, they are unverifiable claims of a religious and philosophical character. See Manual of Style (writing about fiction). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Along with Understanding Heaven and Hell this article seems to be non-notable new age gobbledygook. Add some real sources or delete this poorly-written article. Zeus1234 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think Zeu1234 is able to comment objectively for the simple reason that the taoism today is not quite the version taught in University or that used by new age books like Capra's Tao of Physiscs, of Pooh etc. which are more zen than tao. I will be happy to compare notes with Zeus on this, but if there is a subject of interest that looks anything like gobbledygook to me today, I will personally verify it. ACHKC 03:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete along with all the other articles this user has created so far as they seem to be well-written nonsense. Perspicacite 08:28, 12 October 2007 (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.