Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josho Pat Phelan


 * 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. Maybe some of these sources brought up in this AFD discussion could find their way into the article now. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Josho Pat Phelan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This biographical article of a religious leader does not demonstrate why she has notability in the broader context of Buddhism in the United States. Kansan (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Buddhism. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with nom, very little sourcing found. Appears to be a priest/minister, nothing notable about that. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do want disclose that I wrote the article for Chapel Hill Zen Center (where she is the abbess) last month, but I have never been to that Zen Center nor have I ever met this person or have any connection with her in any way. However, in researching sources for that article I did come across some sources that might not be aware of. In addition to the PBS mention that's used as a ref in the article she was featured in The News & Observer in 2000 (B1 B3) and across several pages of this book that was published in 2012. While it's not super in-depth, this 2017 book is more than a trivial mention as described in WP:GNG. Not counting that last one, I think that's three good sources that are independent of the article's subject, meeting WP:GNG. She has also written works on Buddhism, and the first criteria listed at WP:AUTHOR is being widely-cited. I won't just flood the page with examples but she is cited in this 2005 book, this 2012 book, this 2013 book, this 2014 book, this 2017 book, and this 2022 book. There's even cites in things like a music doctoral thesis. I do think that notability is there, it's just not reflected in the current state of the article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC, and to paraphrase the subjective importance essay: some subjects may not seem important, but if they meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, they are notable. Beccaynr (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources provided demonstrate a meeting of the general notability guideline. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2022 (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.