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 keep. Rationale: The !votes to keep the article are greater both in number and strength; one editor suggested a merge, which gained insufficient traction for consensus, and the only voice calling for deletion other than the nominator did so unconvincingly. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 12:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism[edit]

Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism (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)

Redundant and insufficiently notable. We already have an article called Swami Vivekananda at the Parliament of the World's Religions (1893). Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is not sufficient for a notable event. The subject doesn't meet WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE. Though the Swami's contributions to the parliament as a whole may have some impact beyond India, I don't see this particular speech as having any such international impact, let alone a lasting international impact. All i see is a clear case of blatant WP:SOAPBOXING. Though I have already removed some unsourced content in the article, the problems remains that the subject is misleading in that it claims importance for merely a particular lecture given on one particular conference, with the only evidence of impact being four words in a Bengali scholar's book published by a religious organisation.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Expanded.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment coverage in multiple books Only two of which are secondary, reliable sources, that is, King 2013 and Amore 1979. The rest of the references used in the article are all primary.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much mind. But there's a decent case for a merge rather than keep, and no case for a straight delete. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, then would you mind changing your vote to merge? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would. Johnbod (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether his arguments in the lecture are correct is not at all relevant. And all modern historians use dates different to those by 2,000 years or so. Johnbod (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2019 (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.