Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyokuko Carlson


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Gyokuko Carlson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable co-abbot. Please also see Articles for deletion/Kyogen Carlson. I didn't add this to the previous AfD as people had already begun voting when I was told of it. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete. Same as the rationale for the Kyogen Carlson deletion - basically, no non-trivial mentions in sources to establish either notability or verifiability.  Graymornings (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd also like to tag on File:Gyokuko Carlson.JPG to the outcome of this article. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  19:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - sources indicate enough notability IMO. Aleta  Sing
 * Which sources? The first and fourth sources are from the center's web site, which isn't a reliable third-party ref. The second source gives her and her husband a passing, one-sentence mention. The third doesn't mention her in the text, but in a directory-style "Resources" section at the back of the book, giving her name and the address of the center. The fifth source seems to be a Buddhist news site, and again gives her a very brief mention. Which of these did you think established notability?  Graymornings (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  —Aleta  Sing  01:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No real establishment of the notability of this particular person in the article, though the center might be notable on the basis of claims made in the article. Later merge into a sourced article on Dharma Rain Zen Center is an option.  --Clay Collier (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  —Katr67 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep several books have mentioned her. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless additional sources better establishing notability can be produced. I'd like to see most of the content preserved, though, in an article on Dharma Rain Zen Center. -Pete (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On that note, how does everyone feel about a merge/redirect to this article as a compromise? The center itself seems notable, and some of the info about its abbots could be useful in that context. I think both the keepers and deleters here would like to see some of it preserved, but I see a problem in outright keeping an article with such tenuous notability. As I said above, check the sources. There's no better illustration of "trivial" on Wikipedia.  Graymornings (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection, and I should note that the current WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week is Religion in Oregon, which makes it a nice fit. I found passing mention in a Willamette Week article: and I'll search the Oregonian's archives for a more in-depth profile of the center. -Pete (talk)
 * A reference:
 * PORTLAND BUDDHIST EVENT WILL SHOW CITY'S MANY TEACHINGS
 * Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) - Wednesday, June 1, 2005
 * Author: TIM SULLIVAN
 * The relevant paragraph: "The Dharma Rain Zen Center was founded by mostly European Americans in the mid-1980s when it split from a California-based group, says Domyo Sater, a resident monk at the center. Its songa, made up primarily of white converts, has grown to 160 members.

Faulconer makes a connection between liberal Southeast residents and the growth of Buddhism in the area. "They tend to be people who have done searching before and are dissatisfied with the religion they grew up with," he says. Sater jokes that there are three kinds of Buddhists in the United States: Catholic, Protestant and Jewish."
 * -Pete (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not !voting because I have practiced at the Zen center she teaches at, but my opinion as a Wikipedian is probably it's not quite clear either way. On the one hand, she really is just a local member of the clergy in an area where her religion is growing. On the other, she's the co-leader of one of the biggest Zen centers in the country, and has been mentioned in several reliable, independent books. I would say that notability is borderline, but it's a BLP that's not likely to be a problem. A merge/redirect to a Dharma Rain Zen Center article might work fine, but I really don't see a pressing need for coverage of either them or the center in the encyclopedia. Steven Walling (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2009 (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.