Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist mythology

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. Reason for nomination is fuzzy, and topic is clearly notable (although I agree that the article needs work). AfD is not cleanup. Miniapolis 20:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist_mythology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - Article's subject covered by many other articles. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment VictoriaGrayson, I respect the argument that the content is covered elsewhere, but could you elaborate on a) which those articles are, and b) why this cannot simply be boldly merged into one of those? We definitely have a bit of a problem with redundancy, but I would like to see evidence of that before I cast my !vote. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose she means to refer to the very detailed Talk:Buddhist_mythology#This_article_has_nothing_to_do_with_mythology._It_should_be_deleted_and_started_again.. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. This is definitely a real thing[1]. The topic is a real topic. If the topic is not covered well here and is covered somewhere else than the article should be redirected to that place, but the topic should have an entry.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Procedural close. This proposal is little better than a hit-and-run tagging. There was no evidence offered that this subject is “covered by many other articles” (and none from the nominator subsequently, after a month of asking), but even if there was, this is not grounds for deletion but for a merger. There is no suggestion that the subject lacks notability, or that it libels a living person, or matches any of the other reasons for deletion.

As for the comment linked from the article talk page, that isn't a justification for deletion either, but a proposal for a re-write on the subject at the current title.

So No, and this should be binned tout de suite before anybody else wastes any time on it. Moonraker12 (talk)

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.