Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in 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   - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Women in Buddhism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No content, no significant edit to it in over a year. This article acts as an index to a list of articles that don't exist. Also, virtually nothing links there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral/comment Seems like this would be the proper name for an article dealing with the issues listed in the stub, as it is with for example Christianity and Islam (via redirect). I'm not sure if it's worth keeping as it is though. --Twinzor (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing wrong with the topic or title. When someone feels like expanding the article he or she will. If deleted then it will be restarted. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Ditto to what Northwestgnome said. There is certainly enough scholarly material (and there are certainly enough Buddhist women!) for the subject to be notable and expandable, even if the current revision of the article doesn't demonstrate it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep "The greatest prayer is patience" - Siddharta. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Current state is no reason for deletion. Article has much potential and just needs a little improvement. -- Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not the case that this article needs a little improvement - it's not an article at all and it needs a lot of improvement. I agree that this article would be nice to have, but there is presently no content on it at all. What is the point of keeping it? If anyone is willing to write it, that's fine. If no one is willing to add any content, why should this exist? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a Wiki and such fragmentary starts are expected per our editing policy. If imperfection bothers you then please stick to the good stuff which is mostly complete but note that this is only about one thousandth of the total.Colonel Warden (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sure; I have no problem with imperfection or stub articles, but this is a non-article without any content that has been just that for a long time and there are no prospects of it changing. The WikiProject for it hasn't even prioritized it. The more articles like this that Wikipedia contains, the lower the quality of the encyclopedia. I am all in favor of deleting an article with no content that is essentially a redirect and has not been edited in any substantial way for over a year. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The general standard for deletion decisions is whether the topic is notable, not whether the current article is a quality article. Imperfect articles can be improved. I don't think there's any serious question that the topic is notable. The usual solution to a really bad article on a notable topic (opinionated original research and similar) is to stubbify. This article is already essentially a stub, and doesn't have any really egregious policy violations. So keep it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you believe articles should be deleted if they haven't been improved after a certain period of time, suggest arguing for a change in the deletion policy reasons for deletion to reflect this view. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's helpful, thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is not even a stub, just a note someone left, user:Deeb to be exact, whom I notified. -- 790 (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No content, unsourced, not even useful as a list because the topics listed here don't have articles.  Sandstein   17:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's nothing but a place holder. Absolutely no prejudice to recreation in the future should someone wish to write an encyclopaedic article or even a stub. nancy  (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep per recent improvements. nancy (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lament It is sad that editors would rather pontificate here than make the minimal effort required to make something of this article. A quick search soon located an entire book on the subject and I have made a start by dipping into this.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with the Colonel. The deletion votes above are lame.  The article is now a bona fide stub, and fits Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.  The Transhumanist  07:45, 5 July 2008 (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.