Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intoxicant use in Tantric Buddhism

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. Avi 05:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intoxicant use in Tantric Buddhism

personal essay, original research, fails WP:V, appears to be a POV fork after inclusion of poorly sourced material was rejected in other articles. A Ramachandran 14:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Vajrayana. It seems to be important, but not enough for an entire article. In fact, I think only about half or less could be used in Vajrayana. .V. (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was written by a friend of mine, who I'm teaching how to use Wikipedia -- it was his first edit of any kind, and wasn't "rejected in other articles" (you should look through histories before you make claims like that); he was going to add it to Vajrayana, but I thought it was too long for that and suggested he make it into its own article. As far as WP:V, he's cited a few texts, as far as I can tell, but I'll see if he can add some more references. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggested the merge because the second paragraph could be deleted entirely, as it's the origins of tantric buddhism and would therefore already be explained in the article it would merge to. I think that a section in the tantric buddhism article entitled "Intoxicant use in Tantric Buddhism" with two subsections: "Pre-Existing Use of "Divine Intoxicants" in the Hindu Tradition" and "Internal and External drugs" would be good and it wouldn't terribly overburden the article it's moving to. .V. (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Intoxicant use in Tantric Buddhism. Please do not clutter this AfD with discussion which does not directly relate to the merits of the article and whether it should or should not be deleted. A Ramachandran 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. ~~Please do not clutter the AfD process by nominating articles that could easily be improve~~d -- in this case four good references were given in the article, so there is no basis for doubting V. Placing a wikify tag would have been appropriate, DGG 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I happen to be somewhat of a specialist on Vajrayana. I am also familiar with the references cited. They do not directly address the subject of the article, but are simply the sources for bits and pieces put together in a creative manner in the article. That's why I nominated it as original research. The sources do not support the conclusions. They barely support some of the facts. A Ramachandran 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation. My apologies.DGG 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the whole premise of the article is factually incorrect. There is no documented use of intoxicants besides alcohol in Vajrayana. The sources given do not say that there is. It appears that this editor is attempting to "read between the lines" and create a use of intoxicants out of thin air. The "nectar pills" used in Tibetan Buddhism are herbal and medicinal. I have had the opportunity to take some myself, and it was in no way intoxicating. What is required here is a citation to a source which directly discusses the issue. I either have or have read all the books listed, and none of them does this. This is OR, pure and simple, and bad OR at that. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:51, 15 January 2007 (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.