The result was keep. Discussion for a merger can be done at the article's talk page. lifebaka ++ 13:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Article title is prima-facie evidence of being a POV fork. A quick view of the article confirms it. Sceptre ( talk) 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Do not delete: This article is not a POV fork. We separated the two articles along the lines of 'political controversy' and 'the deity itself'. These are two separate topics. There is more to Dorje Shugden than just this current controversy. To say they should be merged into one article would be to say there is no Dorje Shugden other than this controversy. It would be a POV fork only if it was one article 'pro-Dorje Shugden' and the other 'anti-Dorje Shugden'. This is not the case. Instead, both articles have both POV.
It should also not be merged because the article as it stands is already monstrously long. What needs to happen is it needs to be massively cut down to the core issues. The last thing we need to do is make the article even longer and more unreadable. Who but the most die hard will wade through the article as it stands.
There are many valid reasons for keeping this article. 1. It is discussing an issue that has been described by many researchers as the biggest controversy in Tibetan Buddhism today. 2. This issue is of particular importance this year due to the increased actions against DS practitioners in India and the resulting protests. So it is a topical issue. 3. Wikipedia is an ideal forum for discussing this because it forces both sides in the debate to 'find common ground', instead of further radicalization. In this way, it accomplishes an important social function of promoting reconcilation. 4. The only reason why these articles keep coming up for deletion is one side or another doesn't like the contents of it. If somebody doesn't like the contents of the article then they should go to the talk pages, explain what they want to change, justify their changes and then make the changes. THen through dialogue and negotiation we change the article. 5. The real problem here is some people have not accepted the fact that Wikipedia is 'an encylopedia' and not 'an ideological battleground'. Our job here is to write an informative encylopedia article which presents both sides of the controversy so that somebody who is unaware of this issue can become better informed. If we all agree on this goal, we can write an article. But as long as extremist editors come on here and try to sabotage or use Wikipedia as a battleground for advancing their own agenda, we will keep having to waste our time with these silly games (like this deletion request). I think we all have better things to do with our lives than engage in such games. So lets agree that our goal is to write an informative encylopedia article, work together to write one, and then go back to our families (or direct our attention to other articles). Please, accept what Wikipedia is (an encylopedia) and what it isn't (a battleground) and work in harmony with what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. -- Dspak08 ( talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep - Definately too much information in the controversy to absorb into a general article on Dorje Shugden. The controversy background should also be addressed seperately from the deity itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.201.246 ( talk) 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Discussion for a merger can be done at the article's talk page. lifebaka ++ 13:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Article title is prima-facie evidence of being a POV fork. A quick view of the article confirms it. Sceptre ( talk) 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Do not delete: This article is not a POV fork. We separated the two articles along the lines of 'political controversy' and 'the deity itself'. These are two separate topics. There is more to Dorje Shugden than just this current controversy. To say they should be merged into one article would be to say there is no Dorje Shugden other than this controversy. It would be a POV fork only if it was one article 'pro-Dorje Shugden' and the other 'anti-Dorje Shugden'. This is not the case. Instead, both articles have both POV.
It should also not be merged because the article as it stands is already monstrously long. What needs to happen is it needs to be massively cut down to the core issues. The last thing we need to do is make the article even longer and more unreadable. Who but the most die hard will wade through the article as it stands.
There are many valid reasons for keeping this article. 1. It is discussing an issue that has been described by many researchers as the biggest controversy in Tibetan Buddhism today. 2. This issue is of particular importance this year due to the increased actions against DS practitioners in India and the resulting protests. So it is a topical issue. 3. Wikipedia is an ideal forum for discussing this because it forces both sides in the debate to 'find common ground', instead of further radicalization. In this way, it accomplishes an important social function of promoting reconcilation. 4. The only reason why these articles keep coming up for deletion is one side or another doesn't like the contents of it. If somebody doesn't like the contents of the article then they should go to the talk pages, explain what they want to change, justify their changes and then make the changes. THen through dialogue and negotiation we change the article. 5. The real problem here is some people have not accepted the fact that Wikipedia is 'an encylopedia' and not 'an ideological battleground'. Our job here is to write an informative encylopedia article which presents both sides of the controversy so that somebody who is unaware of this issue can become better informed. If we all agree on this goal, we can write an article. But as long as extremist editors come on here and try to sabotage or use Wikipedia as a battleground for advancing their own agenda, we will keep having to waste our time with these silly games (like this deletion request). I think we all have better things to do with our lives than engage in such games. So lets agree that our goal is to write an informative encylopedia article, work together to write one, and then go back to our families (or direct our attention to other articles). Please, accept what Wikipedia is (an encylopedia) and what it isn't (a battleground) and work in harmony with what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. -- Dspak08 ( talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep - Definately too much information in the controversy to absorb into a general article on Dorje Shugden. The controversy background should also be addressed seperately from the deity itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.201.246 ( talk) 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply