Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamantaka


 * 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The result was Withdrawn apparently (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yamantaka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has been tagged ever since December 2008 for insufficient inline citations. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)'
 * Withdrawn by nominator. The "...discussion has produced new information about the topic..." (WP:WDAFD), thanks to JimRenge who provided sources to the article. Next, we need to point out the sources for specific arguments in the text. Indeed, the topic meets the requirements of Notability, but even a notable article wouldn't pass the new article creation process without proper sourcing. The work continues from here. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that the article is currently not being curated does not warrant it for deletion. Likewise, the fact that an article may suffer from insufficient inline citations does not warrant it for deletion. The deity that the article refers to is of remarkable and notable importance for many Buddhists who follow the Himalayan traditions.  There are numerous translations, publications, and discussions regarding this deity and affiliated practices.  (20040302 (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Thanks for chiming in, 20040302. The article has been in this state ever since December 2008. If there were ...numerous translations, publications, and discussion regarding this deity and affiliated practices..., I would expect this abundance had been shown up in the article. But unless we have sources, we can hardly consider the topic WP:NOTABLE.
 * Of course, according to WP:AFDFORMAT: "... you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at WP:RSL, and then adding the rescue list template to the AfD discussion by posting to the discussion thread."
 * Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Here are several starting points: ISBN 81-85102-78-3,ISBN 0-646-38291-8, ISBN 1-891868-06-3. For academic sources cf. ISBN 095154246X / ISSN 0954-859. These don't have mere references to Yamantaka - they are entire books on the subject. This is from the latter text, (Siklos 1996, p7) : "Yamantaka is present in several tantras which predate the Vajrabhairava treatises. In the Guhyasamajatantra, dated by Wayman to the fourth century, Yamantaka makes two appearances (as one of the 11 khrodha deities, and at the eastern gate of the mandala 1977:99 123-4)." .... and so on.  As I mentioned above, just because the article is not curated does not mean it's not notable.  I am unsure if you are aware of this but, as is true with much of annuttarayogatantra, the practice of Yamantaka entails vows of secrecy which are adhered to by most practitioners. Yet there are still major academic works published both within the scholarly buddhist community and amongst the western academic community that are solely based upon the practise and history of Yamantaka. (20040302 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC))


 * For another list of published works cf. http://www.yamantaka.org/index.php/2-uncategorised/205-books-on-yamantaka-practice
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This Tantric Buddhist deity gets 75 Google Scholar hits, 92 Google Books hits, 95 book hits in WorldCat. I think, for the subject matter of Vajrayana Buddhism, that meets the threshold of notability. SJK (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2016 (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.