Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Dorje Shugden

Although I certainly agree hat there is a lot of controversy over these pages and complete edit wars are fought here, it looks very odd to me to then try to brush these subjects 'under the carpet' so to speak. I think one of the few things that can be done is keeping the article (especially Dorje Shugden) marked as disputed. It is really a sorry to see the stuff hapening the last few months; I think that before this latest edit war, a very smart but delicate balance was found, and at the moment it is reduced to merely NKT propaganda. But, with the disputed neutrality banner, people are made aware there is a problem to begin with. With the same arguments, the NKT people could bring up the article on the Dalai Lama for deletion, because they probably believe it is not neutral either. Sometimes the only way to stop a fight is agreeing to disagree, but you cannot deny the subject of the dispute.rudy (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rudy, normally you and I agree on most things. As I said in the reasons, I am very reluctant to nominate these pages for deletion. But nothing has changed. The small community of individuals who have dedicated weeks of their time on these articles are running around in circles with no result. The articles need sitting on, but who is interested in doing that? My ideal would be for a dedicated editor to work on all the listed articles, and then lock them. But I just don't see that anyone has the time or energy to do that. (20040302 (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes, the topics are notable. But who is willing to give time to steer the large number of random editors, most of whom have their entire religious views invested in these issues, consistently, reliably, and for many many months? I am not convinced that the time required to sort this matter out is worthwhile the value of the noteworthiness. Topics that are notable are only of value if they remain encyclopaedic, and informative. Otherwise, it's best to ring-fence them, let the real world come to a conclusion, and then have another attempt. I AM frustrated. I worked with User:kt66 two years ago, helping him to learn how to be a good wiki editor. He learned to be fair, and find good cites, and to limit his own views to his user page, and the occasional rant on a talk page (nothing unusual there). I hate the idea of deleting articles that reflect truth - or even contextualised published opinions. I see no value to ongoing edit-wars that span half a decade, with no product, but the same biased views - either pro-NKT or against it. I believe that if deletion isn't an option, then a long engagement with a long term admin, who can then lock the article for some cool-down period, and keep a strong eye on the issues for another half-decade, is about the only other option available. It isn't funny, it's not cheap, and the issue will not go away. (20040302 (talk))