Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:39, 6 January 2013

Fazhengnian

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Articles for deletion/Fazhengnian
• Articles for deletion/Fazhengnian (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Fazhengnian (3rd nomination)

Fazhengnian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article qualifies for speedy deletion per G4. That is, it is substantially similar to an article that was deleted via a deletion discussion in September, and has not address the problems that led to the first deletion. In particular, the creator has failed to demonstrated that this concept has garnered more than a trivial mention in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—that being the basic condition of notability for a stand-alone article. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Note from admin who declined G4 nomination: I disagree that this article qualifies for G4, considering the extensive debate that ensued on the talk page after the speedy deletion nomination was contested. The sheer volume of discussion suggested that the G4 nomination wasn't uncontroversial, so I declined it, suggesting a new AFD be opened. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 3. Snotbot  t • c »  03:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• keep: These artical is well translation and should be kept.And I thing some Falungong personail will hate it,BUT it is proved to be truth.Warning,some personail seems to be pay special atttentions to articals about Falungong.I thought they would be have some relationship(especially for money)with some kind of group.--Edouardlicn (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  The concept of "fazhengnian" probably deserves a mention in the Falun Gong article. HOWEVER: You have not provided any arguments for keeping the article. Being a translation is irrelevant, and not a reason to keep. If some Falun Gong people hate it, that is also irrelevant, and not a reason to keep. If the article might be true, that is also not a reason to keep, because verifiability, not truth matters more on Misplaced Pages — and I understand the community has established that the Chinese government is not a reliable source of information about Falun Gong. Finally, financial motives implied about editors who monitor Falun Gong articles are not appropriate and come near violating the policy forbidding personal attacks. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well,I'm just talking something about money,lol.But I thing I should be kept.or at lease merge to Falungong. --Edouardlicn (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• delete: As per previous discussion, "quality, third party sources to show notability" are still wanting in this version. Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines have specific requirements for sources. Previous rationale to delete still holds water. --Hanteng (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to the movement's article and then lock. That or delete and salt. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Merge with Falun Gong. This article is short, just a handful of sentences. I see no reason why a sentence or two couldn't be salvaged for inclusion in the parent article and be done with it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete, for failing to meet WP:GNG. There does not appear to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to write a complete or balanced article on this topic (most of the information currently in the article is cited to sources that are not reliable and/or not independent). If scholarly articles are produced in the future that offer a more detailed explanation of this concept and its role in falungong, then it can be revisited. —Zujine|talk 00:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Merge any reliably sourced content with Falun Gong and keep title as a Redirect. First Light (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• keep: some small even tiny articles are existing at enwp. But article like Fazhengnian, which is the well-know signal of Falun Gong failing to meet WP:GNG? Is here has different criterions for things from different culture?--AddisWang (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Though I'm not going to get involved in this war.--Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 07:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussions on this topic seem to draw in lots of participation from users for whom zh-wiki is their primary account, and maybe that's why there's always some confusion about which policies are relevant. I'm not sure if zh-wiki has different general notability guidelines, but ours can be found here. This isn't a cultural issue, and neither is a matter of liking or disliking the subject matter. I don't think anyone disputes that fazhengnian is a real thing of importance to falungong practitioners. But there is simply not currently enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for a stand-alone article (which is why it was already merged with Falun Gong after the last AfD). —Zujine|talk 13:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just wonder why the article should be rebuild after a consensus of deletion.--Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 11:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A good question that probably doesn't have a good answer.TheBlueCanoe 03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Weak keep or merge with Falun Gong, somewhat notable but lacks neutral deep-in references. --Makecat 08:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - This looks more like a spell, what with the hand motions and the words. Is it intended as such? --Auric Talk 18:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge. In addition to the "fazhengnian" meditation, Falun Gong has five other meditation/qigong exercises. I would wager that there is more written about each of those exercises in reliable sources than there is about fazhengnian (which is not mentioned at all in the leading books on Falun Gong), yet I don't think anyone would argue that they each need their own article. Just take one or two more well sourced sentences from this page and merge with main article. I can volunteer to do this, depending on the outcome of this discussion.TheBlueCanoe 16:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Commented Here is the list of what might appear as solid scholar secondary reliable sources currently used to support the article:
  • Rahn, Patsy (2002). "The Chemistry of a Conflict: The Chinese Government and the Falun Gong". Terrorism and Political Violence. 14 (4): 41. doi:10.1080/714005633.
  • Yu, H (2004). The New Living-Room War: Media Campaigns and Falun Gong. Canberra: Asia Examined: Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Conference of the ASAA. pp. P108. ISBN 0-9580837-1-1.
  • Eugene V. Gallagher; W. Michael Ashcraft (1 October 2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America (Five Volumes). Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-313-05078-7. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  • Kai-Ti Chou (2007). Contemporary religious movements in Taiwan: rhetorics of persuasion. Edwin Mellen Press. pp. 159–160. ISBN 978-0-7734-5241-1. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  • Noah Porter (July 2003). Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study. Universal-Publishers. pp. 27, 32, 218. ISBN 978-1-58112-190-2. Retrieved 6 January 2013.
  • Penny, Benjamin. "The Body of Master Li" (PDF). Humanities Research Centre and Centre for Cross-Cultural Research, The Australian National University. p. 3. Retrieved January 06, 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

The article evolved substantially, since it was submitted for the AfD review. Do we still need to Carthago delenda est and salt the ground? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: You've done a commendable job finding additional sources --I think you've likely discovered every reliable source there is that mentions it, save maybe one or two, and I think it would be worthwhile to take a couple sentences from you've added and integrate it into the parent article. It had already been established during the last AfD that there are some mentions of this concept in reliable sources, but these are evidently minor mentions, and not enough to establish notability for a stand-alone article per the relevant Misplaced Pages guideline, to wit: "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The key word here is significant. If we actually examine how much attention Fazhengnian received in the sources you've cited, it's minimal, typically not exceeding a few sentences, and many of those mentions are redundant in terms of their content. As other editors have noted, the most authoritative books on Falun Gong's teachings and practices don't talk about this subject at all, which doesn't bode well for establishing its significance, and also means that we're lacking the kind of in-depth, balanced analysis that would be necessary for this article to have real value on its own. This is not to misunderstand the obvious significance of the ritual to the FLG, but it appears for now that like the other meditations, exercises, spells, teachings etc etc of Falun Gong, this should be simply be briefly summarized in the Teachings of Falun Gong article, and still doesn't seem to warrant separate treatment. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I should correct my previous comment. I checked again one of the leading books on Falun Gong (David Ownby's). He actually does mention the fazhengnian practice once. It takes up all of half a sentence, so it was easy to miss. But that seems to reinforces the point that it's a trivial mention.TheBlueCanoe 03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)
• AfD debates