Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essential Teachings

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Teachings

[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)

Although the Dalai Lama is notable, individual publications are not notable simply because he is the author. In this case there is little to say about this volume, which is why it remains a stub after 12 years. There is nothing that makes this book notable beyond being teachings of the notable figure. It is not widely cited or the subject of independent analysis. The book is already cited on the Dalai Lama page so there is nothing here to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Spirituality. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I oppose merge or redirect in this case, and this is why I went to AFD and not a bold redirect. "Essential Teachings" is so generic a title that I don't think it is reasonable that the redirect goes to the Dalai Lama. That would seem to violate WP:NPOV because it could be read as Wikipedia saying that essential teachings are the property of the Dalai Lama specifically. I think it needs to be straight deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, surprisingly enough there does not seem to be any reviews of this publication. Publishers Weekly provides a list of reviews they have done of the Dalai Lama's publications here, and this one is not listed, suggesting that there has just not been much interest in it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:59, 30 August 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.