Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal Buddha

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. Article has been improved quite a lot and now has multiple sources. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 14:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Buddha

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

Delete - Mostly sourced from 2 self-published books. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article cites a sufficient number of reliable sources, but uses general references. Instead of deleting the article, what it will should do is linking the sources to the respective material through inline citations. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't linking through inline citations, though. You're just adding a list of cites to the bottom of the page. Ogress _smash! 02:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ogress And? It's enough for now. "Wikipedia does not require the use of inline citations except to support direct quotations, material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged and contentious material about living persons." Template:More footnotes Rupert Loup (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupert loup: I did not see this because you did not format that properly, you need to use {{ping}}, not [[ping]]. That might be technically true, but readers are not going to be able to determine that the alleged cites have anything at all to do with the page unless you source statements. This is, after all, an AfD and the article is in awful shape. I added a comment because I wanted to suggest you add inline cites: it's a much better argument than a pile of books in a bibliography that might only be there for show. I have not voted to delete, only commented. Ogress _smash! 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, Tony! Might be worth keeping, though; see Paul Williams (2008), Mahayana Buddhism, p.157-158. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Someone inserted a weird RfC banner at the top of this page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Improve or delete: The list of additional reading doesn't save the article from the current WP:SELFPUB problem. I'd say give it a week to fix the issues and if they are not fixed, then delete it. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've removed Paraskevopoulos, and cleaned-up the rest. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "Eternal Buddha" is one of the central concepts of the Lotus Sutra and the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Reliable sources exist, the article should be improved. JimRenge (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cleaned up and legit topic. Points to references that can be used for further improvements. Potential here. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.