Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easily confused Buddhist representations

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 no consensus. There is clearly not a consensus to delete this content – if anything, the closest thing to a consensus is "don't delete". However, there is also no consensus here on what is the right alternative: to keep the content as its own page – presumably under a different title, since the one thing most seem to agree on is that the page is poorly named – or to merge the content into some other relevant page(s). Those alternatives can be hashed out elsewhere and at this point deletion seems the least desired result, so I am closing this AfD. RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easily confused Buddhist representations[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article title and the article is WP:SYNTHESIS about various Buddhist deities, which are "easily confused". The "Easily confused Buddhist representations" has no academic basis and is an WP:OR term. We already have articles Buddhahood, Buddharupa and Boddhisattva, where the referenced information can be suitably merged. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Buddhism. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: "Easily confused." That's all I have to say. Pure OR/Synth. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe you guys can tell the lady at our neighborhood temple who that is in her statue. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge but at the very least rename, or merge somewhere. If we had a decent article on the Iconography of the Buddha or Buddha in art, much of it could go there, but (pathetically) we don't - that redirects to Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand. The title is obviously crap, but the delete votes don't seem to have looked beyond that, & offer no rationales for deletion (I just don't understand what SusanLesch is saying). User:Redtigerxyz, you haven't proposed a merge, or merges, but deletion. If it's deleted, it can't be suitably merged. As things are, it could be tacked on to Buddhist art. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, sorry, I was trying to say that even members of a sangha can be confused. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm not sure why that's an argument for deletion though. It's silly in a title (or not the wiki way) but there's no doubt that non-Buddhists and no doubt many Buddhists can be "easily confused" as to the identity of eg the main and other images in shrines, & an attempt to redress this has a place somewhere on wp. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, Buddharupa includes the iconography of the Buddha. I have merged the Dhyani Buddha part in the Five Tathāgatas, but a complete merge in 1 article is not advisable. Also, leaving a "crap" title redirect to any other article seems to be not a good option.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting a merge leaving a redirect, though that could anyway be dealt with separately if you dislike it that much. Buddharupa badly needs a rename - I had no idea that was what it was about, and had never looked at it. No wonder it gets under 60 views a day, and has not been developed much. It's pretty inadequate. I don't really see why "a complete merge in 1 article is not advisable" actually. At the very least, the references here are much better than those at Buddharupa (very poor) even if little use is made of most of them. We have so ridiculously little on Buddhist art, it seems perverse to set about deleting stuff. In fact, Buddharupa claims at the start to cover images of all Buddhas, but in fact only covers Gautama, so this stuff would (all) be useful additions there. Btw, the Visual arts sort list is the correct one for this, not "Arts". Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I concur that the lack of Buddha in art is ridcolous. Jesus in art redirects to Depictions of Jesus. We do have Depictions of Gautama Buddha in film. I am sadly not familiar with the topic in question, but I do think that some content would belong to Depictions of Buddha. Is there anyone who could stub something on this so we would have a merge target? User:Uncle G, any chance this tickles your fancy? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should stick with Buddharupa, and rename it, for now. The point of the article under discussion is that is is principally about images of other buddhas, not Gautama. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also redirected Buddha in art there, for now. I'm happy to merge this (Easily Confused..) into Buddharupa. I think at some point we need to decide whether a single "Buddhas in art" (all of them) or two articles: "Gautama/The Buddha in art" plus one on other Buddhas in art. If the articles were better they might need splitting on grounds of length. An alternative is to move this to a title to be decided - maybe Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art - and clarify that the scope of Buddharupa is just images of Gautama (and renaming it). In that case I could start an expansion of this one, which lacks many of the most basic points. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2] Buddharupa should cover only Gautama Buddha. Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand (which started as Iconography of the Buddha) has common elements of the Buddha iconography. Would suggest merging into Buddharupa and having an article Iconography of Gautama Buddha or likewise. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm happy to keep Buddharupa to cover only Gautama Buddha, which really only involves changing the first senence. But probably this should be proposed at the talk there. In that case I would suggest keeping this, renaming and re-writing it. Some would survive. I'm not so sure about merging Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand, which works well as a more local article. Again, that would need a discussion there. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge or at the very least rename, The argument for deletion are mainly aginsy poor title, which may be renamed; else content can be merged in relevant pages. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge, this article has plenty of sources to make it notable. If it can't get kept then the information could be added to other pages. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started Talk:Buddharupa#Clarifying_the_scope per the above - to clarify that that article just covers Gautama, as it actually does, but not as the lead says. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge or at the very least rename per Johnbod. Huggums537 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clearly consensus that something might be done with this material, but there is not yet consensus on exactly what - whether rename or merge, and if so, to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 09:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - This needs to go. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Related Talk:Buddharupa#Requested_move_3_June_2022 now started. That article will just cover Gautama Buddha. There seems consensus to rename this one - to Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art, unless anyone has a better idea. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current title is clear and describes the content, which is appropriately referenced, of general notability and importance and interest. It should be kept as it is, though I don’t object to renaming it as Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art if it needs to be renamed.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deciding whether something is "easily confused" is inevitably original research. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yes, everybody agrees the title is bad, but why is that a reason to delete rather than rename? Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Srnec (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2022 (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.