Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Daizan Skinner Roshi

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 delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Daizan Skinner Roshi

[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)

Lack of reliable independent secondary sources under WP:GNG and does not appear to meet criteria under WP:BIO. Article seems fairly promotional in tone as well. No hits on Google News. Citations in article do not seem reliable and do not indicate notability to me. Sasquatch t|c 01:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sasquatch t|c 01:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sasquatch t|c 01:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Sasquatch t|c 01:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting that this page needs significant revision. It seems a number of the ref links are no longer valid and additional citations are needed. I will work on revising it in the coming weeks. Westmoquette

It's not so much the links are no longer valid, but none of them are reliable sources which would indicate notability in the first place. Sasquatch t|c 18:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it appears that Westmoquette may have a significant conflict of interest that has yet to be disclosed. Sasquatch t|c 02:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I don't see much more than spam here. In 2007, this could have been excused, but in 2021, this is untenable. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources, heavily edited by an editor with a fairly clear undisclosed COI Dexxtrall (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2021 (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.