Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Atisha


 * 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: delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Atisha
Unidentified subject; created by the same anon,, who gave us now-deleted articles on Dylan Richardson and Gavin Wiggins. No information added to the article since its creation. There is a notable Atisha, and the quotes seem plausible for this Buddhist teacher. Sources might provide us with a no-brainer keep. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete (five votes to delete, one vote to keep, no work performed in the additional week). —LrdChaos (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless subject identified and at least some sourced quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: is a well-known and important figure in Buddhism. He is best known for A Lamp for the Path of Enlightenment, which would provide a number of nice quotations (but is not the source for the quotation on the page). A weak source for the quotation on the page can be found here and on several other websites. Unfortunately I am travelling and won't be able to clean this up or provide non-web sources until after the closure date. --Ubiquity 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I expect to extend any votes during the holidays that appear to have insufficient community participation, so don't worry too much about this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. - To be left as an unsourced stub based on all the Google search quote matches with the Buddhist teacher Atisha. - InvisibleSun 07:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't typically consider Googled quote websites as adequate evidence that a quote is properly attributed. In fact, we routinely reject such arguments from vanity editors, so this is a loophole I'd rather leave closed. I checked for 2 exact phrases in the quote and got 638 without adding the term "Atisha" and 419 with it, suggesting that only 2/3 of them even have this attribution. I'm hoping we can get a real source to back up this strongly suggestive but not reliable evidence. My local library seems light on this subject, but I might get lucky with the usual-suspect quote collections. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: In voting to keep this page as an unsourced stub, I don't see it as essentially different from many of the other stub articles which we have kept for notable names with no better attributions. It's typical in such cases that a page is created without intro, sourcing, links, etc. — nothing more, in many cases, than a notable name and an unsourced quote.  Another editor will then come along, reformat the article and supply the missing intro, dates, links, etc.; the quote will often remain unsourced.  For this reason I still don't see how this stub deserves deletion as opposed to all the others we have allowed.  It could even be argued that, according to our current practice, a "properly attributed" quote is a contradiction in terms.  If a quote is merely "attributed" or "unsourced," then a determination of whether it is proper, i.e., based on evidence, has not yet been made. If we wish to review our policy on these articles, so much the better; but as long the practice remains as it does, then this one seems no less qualified. - InvisibleSun 09:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm probably overreacting to the fact this was created by someone who also created 2 other articles of questionable notability, and that this article has no info whatsoever on the putative subject, with a name that could just as easily be a nom d'Internet for an unnotable as it could a real moniker. I concede that this particular subject probably is meant to be the notable Atisha, but once I got started, I felt it a good idea to track it down for sure. I suspect that even if Ubiquity, I, or someone else don't get a solid source for the quote, folks will agree with you and be willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, given that, out of 8700 articles, we currently have 1230 with cleanup tags and 449 with no-intro tags, with many more likely untagged (given only half a dozen people tagging them), it's not unreasonable to call attention to such an article if there's a good chance to fix the problem. I'm not suggesting VfD for everything, but let's face it: most of this work never gets done without some prodding. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I'd like to see us adopt a rule or guideline for sourced vs. unsourced quotes (in particular, instituting some sort of requirement that a page have at least one sourced quote, which I don't think is unreasonable), but at the present time, we don't have such a thing and we do have more than a fair number of articles consisting entirely of unsourced quotes. However, given the other contributions by this editor, and the lack of any real Google presence of the quote (my search on the first two sentences turned up 40 results, of which several are member profiles for sites and none which provide any further source beyond "Atisha"), I'd really like to see something sourced on this page to consider keeping it. I don't know that not having any sourced quotes, on its own, should be considered good cause for a VFD, but I'd vote the same way on any others that were. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete concur with LrdChaos. --Aphaia 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, concur with LrdChaos as the page stands, but it does seem that there may be some work done on this page shortly that may warrant keeping it. Until then, I'd vote to delete. ~ UDScott 15:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above comments. --Sir James Paul 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.