Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dainin Katagiri


 * 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   20:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dainin Katagiri
I don't think sufficient notability has been shown. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. He's no Dalai Lama, sure, but it looks like he has at least two books out by Shambhala Publications: . Appears to have notability in helping spread the popularity of Zen Buddhism in the US. Rohirok 02:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable in his area of Zen Buddhism and the information about him is verifiable as well on the net. A google search shows quite a number of references to him. And I wish to add that as a non-paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia can afford to have broader standards for notability than traditional encyclopedias. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  02:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He is definately notable. Bradcis 04:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:BIO, not having multiple non-trivial third-party articles. also fails WP:BK since no evidence his books have met any of those requirements (adopted as a textbook, best seller, mutiple major reviews).  keep noms beg the question by stating "appears to have notability" without documentation, or wishing for broader standards of notability - this is the standard we have now, and it's a level playing field for all.  Change the notability guidelines if you must, but this is what we have to work with.  Tychocat 09:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tychocat. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;WP:BIO, or actually Notability (people), which is where WP:BIO redirects these days, indicates (today) that "this guideline is not Wikipedia policy". And it observes that notability is contentious. However a fair test of whether a person is notable is sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources. And ways to verify notability of articles reminds us that "article for deletion reviews, although frequently limited to internet resources, must remain aware that not all published material of significance has been posted on the internet."  Bottom line...since he was a significant regional player in a major religion, since his existence is verifiable, since the role he played is as significant as that of the founders of, say, the Evangelical Lutherans in Mission of the Lutheran church in Minnesota, it would be inappropriate to delete the article. Williamborg (Bill) 13:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment - Granted the guideline is not policy, but the rest of the sentence regarding this guideline says, "...meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included". If you're happy with just being verifiable to get an article, then obviously all of us deserve articles?  I will also note that your statement "...he was a significant regional player in a major religion..." begs the question that remains unanswered, of the documentation of being a "significant regional player".  Tychocat 04:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Siva.`Bakaman Bakatalk 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. -Kmaguir1 05:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Need time to research students who received "Dharma Transmission" from Rev. Katagiri's which will help demonstate his influence on Zen in America. ZenPractioner 08:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if we need time to research, what does that say? Not easily accessible. And things that aren't easily accessible are more likely to not be notable.-Kmaguir1 15:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Williamborg, but remove the quotes (or cite references for them). RFerreira 07:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.