Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul W. Lynch


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul W. Lynch

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nominated for deletion due to notability. None of the references appear to indicate that this individual has written a book about his art or is otherwise notable. The references appear to discuss him only trivially if at all. The article appears as if it is being used as a personal advertisement. Finally, this article has come to notice on the BLP/N as having numerous BLP violations. I think the best way to resolve these issues is to delete the article. Jarhed (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: For want of a better location, I posted a mention of this debate at Talk:Dalai Lama.--Jarhed (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * DeleteIn the record of this entry, it shows that the gentleman himself added this stuff, under his own user account Dochong. This is similar to several other "gurus" who have tried to promote their business on Wikipedia. A google search of "Paul W. Lynch" does not show a single website about him and buddhism, plus there are sources in the Zen community who point out he is a fraud with mental problems. Should look into his "organization" five mountain which is listed here also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevZendo (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The version of the article posted by User:Dochong  contains no substantial assertions of of notability (the books are from self-publication sources and no reviews are cited), and reads pretty much like an ad.  The negative material added later appears to be WP:OR, either unsourced or sourced to non-reliable sources; in either case, it appears to me that portion should be deleted immediately per WP:BLP. I do note that there is a reference to the subject in the article Golden Wind Zen Order.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Delete per nom. - RobertMel (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional claptrap that doesn't pass WP:BIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to be notable. Though the self-published nature of the books are not that important in this case since they are poetry books, and poets have a long history of self-publishing their work. Meowy 03:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.
 * Delete appears to be self-promotion by a non-notable individual (self-promotion being an activity that doesn't exactly strike me as particularly zen-like, but whatever). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, violates policies of self-promotion and notability.  Marlith  (Talk)   22:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing in the article establishes notability. The history of his religious life, who he studied with etc., is not really notable. If he wants to become well-known he needs to get his poetry noticed, maybe send some to Oprah.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Additional research shows that his "title" is a title given to students. According to his teacher, as noted above, he was removed from being a student at their school for mental issues. His own teacher has no entry in Wikipedia and all other contributions about his school were created by himself.RevZendo (talk) 18:32, 14 March 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.