Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuttaCentral

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. I placed lesser weight on the argument to keep, which did not discuss how the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuttaCentral

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

Promotional advertisement, created by a user[1] who has worked on spamming this website's link on wikipedia.[2][3][4][5] Capitals00 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely solidly better notable and improvable for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a well known website on Internet which offers translation of Buddhists scriptures in various languages. Its very informative also. No NEED for deletion at all. Buddhist Scholars use this website for scholarly purposes. It's a quite well known website in the Buddhist world. Terabar (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are reasons to keep the article. "Well known" is too subjective to be a criteria for keeping an article, as is "informative". Does the subject meet WP:GNG, or WP:WEB? - Aoidh (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if this is the wrong place to respond. In response to Capitals00, I did not spam anything, and would appreciate it if you withdrew that accusation. Look at the cases you cite. In the first two links you give, I removed a link to metta.lk and replaced it with a suttacentral link. metta.lk is an archaic and poorly maintained site, which frequently experiences downtime. In fact it is down as I write this. I replaced this with an accurate and reliable link to a modern site. In the third link, I replaced a link to search.nibbanam.com, which just leads to a "coming soon" notice. In the final case, I added a link to the text where there was none in the original post. In none of these, or any other cases, have I spammed Wikipedia. The pages are obviously improved by my edits. My only mistake, which I freely acknowledge, was that I didn't carefully read the guidelines for making edits—they are long and complicated and I don't have the time. So yes, I am the developer for SuttaCentral and, according to the strict rules, I should not have made these edits. My bad. But I believed—and still do—that the edits are obviously required, in order for the relevant pages to stay up to date with current web resources. It is absurd to characterize this as spamming. The appropriate response would have been to send me a personal message informing me of that rule and asking that I comply with it in future. Sujato (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my previous message, I have now looked in more detail at Wikipedia's policy, and I do not believe I have violated anything. What I did was clearly not Citation spam which, in accord with the guidelines there, “should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia.” Furthermore, uncontroversial edits include repairing broken links, which is mostly what I did. These guidelines seem reasonable to me, and I now do not believe that I have broken any of them. Unless I hear otherwise, I will revert the changes. They are entirely uncontroversial, and anyone who knows the topic would agree that these links improve the site. Sujato (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The only reference that could be viewed as a third-party reliable source that discusses the article's subject in any detail is this, which reads like a press release more than anything, and the bio of the "author" is literally Lorem ipsum filler. One questionable source does not meet WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG --Ekvastra (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2016 (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.