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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Meritorious Deeds (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)

Just another obscure Buddhist schema VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following the policy reason for delete. The phrase appears in several books I've easily found, which suggests to me it is notable as per the WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It most probably deserves an article as it does have good notability, yet, the page needs some serious edits to make it up to par with the standards. NikolaiHo 21:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and request expert attention Nobody would try to delete Seven virtues - Though I admit the latter had more impact in general. There appeared to be plenty of references to go around, which would appear to make it a fairly notable part of Buddhism theology. Also the article definitely needed some cleanup and maybe a good lot more references. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 02:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Google Books search automatically linked by the nomination process appears, prima facie, to find several independent reliable sources with significant coverage, so we really need a better reason for deletion than "just another obscure Buddhist schema". I would note that it would be helpful, as Buddhism is a very diverse religion, if the article could explain which branch(es) of Buddhism accept this concept. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously a notable article, as this list of books mention this subject. However, tag the stub article: these references may need to be added. —Prhartcom♥ 05:08, 17 May 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.