Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Sangha


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 03:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Diamond Sangha

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:N (WP:ORG). This organization is not notable. The external links are primarily to websites that promote this organization in some way, and not to 3rd party sources. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 11:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  15:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – The organization is clearly notable as shown by the following Google News hits, And Google Scholar  .  At worst case this is a Merge/Redirect to either Robert Baker Aitken or Anne Hopkins Aitken who have had articles here on Wikipedia since 2005.  Research  before nominating!  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) As per WP:ORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. None of those Google News hits qualify as significant coverage; they all mention Diamond Sangha incidentally in relation to the actual subject of the article, which in most cases, is Robert Baker Aitken. Further, none of the Google Scholar hits are about Diamond Sangha. They simply mention it as an institutional affiliation of the author or subject of the article. That means the subject of the article is notable, not Diamond Sangha. If you can show me a single third-party article that is about Diamond Sangha itself, and not about Robert Baker Aitken, I will be happy to withdraw the nomination.
 * 2) Notability is not inherited. Robert Baker Aitken does not make Diamond Sangha notable, just because he is notable and he founded and ran it.
 * 3) Lastly, regarding your comment "Research before nominating!" please assume good faith.  ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 10:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The New York Times - Travel - By TERENCE NEILAN = Published: September 24, 1995 – .  Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 11:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While the New York Times is a big name, that still doesn't qualify as significant coverage. That's a weekly Q&A travel column, where Diamond Sangha gets listed along with five other zen centers, in response to the question "Where can I find a retreat in Hawaii?" Hardly significant coverage. Diamond Sangha is not the subject of the column. In addition, that column is 14 years old. One mention, where they are not the subject of significant coverage, 14 years ago, is not notable. ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 02:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, Shoessss provides evidence that there isn't sufficient coverage. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2010 (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.