From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
|
===[[:Bhante Vimalaramsi]]=== |
|||
|
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} |
|||
|
<div class=”other-afds” style=”width:33%; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: var(–background-color-interactive-subtle, #f8f9fa); color: var(–color-base, inherit); margin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 1em; padding: 0.2em; float: right; clear: right; font-size: 88%; min-width:20em; max-width: 100%”>AfDs for this article: |
|||
|
{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhante Vimalaramsi}} |
|||
|
</div> |
|||
|
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> |
|||
|
:{{la|1=Bhante Vimalaramsi}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhante Vimalaramsi (2nd nomination)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 16#{{anchorencode:Bhante Vimalaramsi}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1317191194/cur|edits since nomination]]) |
|||
|
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Bhante Vimalaramsi}}) |
|||
|
I propose Bhante Vimalaramsi’s article should be either deleted or merged into another topic. The reasons are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles%20for%20deletion/Bhante%20Vimalaramsi fundamentally unaltered from the 2012 ballot], which decided to remove the page on grounds of lack of notability and independent sources. |
I propose Bhante Vimalaramsi’s article should be either deleted or merged into another topic. The reasons are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles%20for%20deletion/Bhante%20Vimalaramsi fundamentally unaltered from the 2012 ballot], which decided to remove the page on grounds of lack of notability and independent sources. |
||
| Line 7: | Line 15: | ||
|
2. Other sources are significantly biased. Kraft is a self-published author that does not meet the criteria for notoriety as a secondary source. Kraft was a student of Bhante, and while that alone may not be able to confirm the presence of bias, Wikipedia ”’excludes works produced by the article’s subject or someone affiliated with it”’. David Johnson has published a book through an ”unknown publisher” whose editorial integrity cannot be verified, as well as Vimalaramsi; the article is littered with his (Vimalaramsi’s) own ”’self-published work”’ that violates the General Notability Guideline for sources that are “Independent of the Subject”. |
2. Other sources are significantly biased. Kraft is a self-published author that does not meet the criteria for notoriety as a secondary source. Kraft was a student of Bhante, and while that alone may not be able to confirm the presence of bias, Wikipedia ”’excludes works produced by the article’s subject or someone affiliated with it”’. David Johnson has published a book through an ”unknown publisher” whose editorial integrity cannot be verified, as well as Vimalaramsi; the article is littered with his (Vimalaramsi’s) own ”’self-published work”’ that violates the General Notability Guideline for sources that are “Independent of the Subject”. |
||
|
The article is too compromised to be kept separate. The few trustworthy sources that could be found are inaccessible or don’t mention this person at all upon closer examination. I propose that, in the event that the article isn’t deleted for its multiple violations of Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines, that it is instead merged into another topic, if available. |
The article is too compromised to be kept separate. The few trustworthy sources that could be found are inaccessible or don’t mention this person at all upon closer examination. I propose that, in the event that the article isn’t deleted for its multiple violations of Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines, that it is instead merged into another topic, if available. |
||
Latest revision as of 21:54, 16 October 2025
- Bhante Vimalaramsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I propose Bhante Vimalaramsi’s article should be either deleted or merged into another topic. The reasons are fundamentally unaltered from the 2012 ballot, which decided to remove the page on grounds of lack of notability and independent sources.
Many sources could not be properly verified at the time of this writing, while some either do not qualify as independent, or are not trustworthy secondary sources, or cannot have their editorial integrity checked.
1. Sources that do, but only partially, are the Pluralism Project from Harvard University. It’s cited at first as depicting the subject (“Vimalaramsi”) on a biographical tone. However, upon closer examination his name could not be found in the referenced article. The second link to the pluralism project was found broken and inaccessible, compromising the article’s integrity.
2. Other sources are significantly biased. Kraft is a self-published author that does not meet the criteria for notoriety as a secondary source. Kraft was a student of Bhante, and while that alone may not be able to confirm the presence of bias, Wikipedia excludes works produced by the article’s subject or someone affiliated with it. David Johnson has published a book through an unknown publisher whose editorial integrity cannot be verified, as well as Vimalaramsi; the article is littered with his (Vimalaramsi’s) own self-published work that violates the General Notability Guideline for sources that are “Independent of the Subject”.
The article is too compromised to be kept separate. The few trustworthy sources that could be found are inaccessible or don’t mention this person at all upon closer examination. I propose that, in the event that the article isn’t deleted for its multiple violations of Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines, that it is instead merged into another topic, if available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathnotekll2 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
