Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition (2nd nomination)

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))