Deletion of Dorje Shugden

Comment: i sagreed. While I wish I to assusming wp:agf, i hate it when people group dozens of articles for deleiton even though they have different levels of , , and . it seems dishonest to me winsce we inevitably have to send an admin through to dlete the articles that really should be speedied and instate separate AFDs for whatever is left. It is quite afgaravating
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: This poorly considered mass nomination is putting people off.  If some of these such as Western Shugden Society were considered in isolation they could be quickly deleted as no sources can easily be found.  The nominator is also the only editor of one or more of them so he could delete ones on which he's the only editor per author's request.  Some of the  ones are not that notable and could go.  Some of these could be considered individually in AfDs.  But NKT and Dorje Shugden themselves are a clear '''speedy keep
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Dorje Shugden with Dorje Shugden Controversy again as we had it in the past. As far as I know the separation of both articles was a result of an organized Wikiepdia-campaign of NKT leadership. But strongly '''Keep''' New Kadampa Tradition, Kelsang Gyatso and Dorje Shugden Controversy. If these articles are deleted all the discussions and the trancparency of their development get lost (all discussion pages are deleted as well!). I see no use in this. Moreover the New Kadampa Tradition article was already nominated for deletion on October 30, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. Of course the articles need balance again and are a battlegound for different views. Researcher Bluck and Mills pointed these out in their researches already. Prof. Bluck shows in his research how to find a balance. In general if the present academical researches are used there is no conflict. Sadly the researches are strongly rejected as  from NKT or Shugden followers and they were step by step removed from the articles. My suggestion to remind them and insert these researches again, and to follow the WP:Guidelines for articles. The NKT article also was nominated as B-class on the quality scale. I suggest to revert it to the date when the NKT article received that quality vote. Then block the article from edition and moderate edition step by step via discussion on the talk page. (Similar as compromises were worked out on Scientology.) Good Luck
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:reliable source)