Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Warner

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The side for keeping is in the majority and AbstractIllusions has provided objective evidence of notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Warner[edit]

Brad Warner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet standards of notability. Biography section describes the usual tale of a wandering soul who drifted around, made it to Japan, made it out again, tried his hands at online journalism^Wblogging, became a veteran of Buddhism, etc., etc. Most sources are self-published, niche newsletters, etc. Is he notable as a musician? Doesn't seem like it. Is he notable as a Zen priest? Doesn't seem so. Is he notable as an author? Doesn't seem so, etc., etc. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Doesn't seem so" is not an argument, not even an opinion. Brad Warner is an internationally published author, and well-known for his criticisms of Dennis Merzel. That alone yet makes him notable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (people): "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Tricycle are pieces written by him. The HuffPo piece is good...a few more of that caliber and I will be glad to change positions. The rest of what you listed are web pages: useful as "external links", but not for demonstrating notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
NPO is the major broadcast organisation in Holland. here's an interview with Brad warner in Tricycle. This seems to be a BBC radio braocast on Brad Warner. And here's a Washington Post article which quotes Brad Warner. And here's a CNN transcript in Which Brad Warner offers comments on "the Chinese rituals that accompany this kind of funeral." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all the sorts of things that become pretty sketchy. The WaPo quote, in its entirety, is "To me it sounds like we're just substituting karma for God", which is pretty trivial. Radio broadcasts are ephemeral and we typically don't resort to such things for notability. The Tricycle interview about his book helps a little, although this is a very obscure magazine (circulation <50K). The book itself has pretty low holdings for a general-interest topic (~230), but that could be because it is relatively new. Agricola44 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Brad Warner is an internationally published author, and well-known for his criticisms of Dennis Merzel. That alone yet makes him notable." No it doesn't. He's not even mentioned on Merzel's page, which mentions "a group of 12 teachers", then "44 teachers", then "66 teachers", neither of which is specified with "including Brad Watner". Warner's publishing are in blogs and industry-specific journals. So "doesn't seem" seems pretty good against "A and B make him notable" when A and B don't count. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to Wiki-policies, instead of to your personal impressions. The lenght of the Merzel page could be multiplied with criticisms; only the most relevant have been mentioned. Warner has written several books, which are also available outside the USA. How much coverage do you expect outside the Buddhist subculture? If that's your criterium, most articles on Buddhist teachers should be deleted. The "industry-specific journals" are the kind of journals that are relevant here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, yeah. If all their notoriety is within the industry, and they are mentioned only in industry-specific journals, then they're not notable for an encyclopaedia, are they? You could put them on buddhism.wikia.com, or in Who's Who (and Who Has Been Who) Of Buddhism instead. Look at all the golf industry leaders who are prominent within the golfing world and who write books, but aren't in here, because they're not notable. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spa-created article from the early days of WP. Sources are mostly ephemera. I failed to see that Dennis Merzel is even mentioned in this article. Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Correct; so, that's not a reason for deletion, but for improvement.
Sorry, but all I can find on this are a few web pages (one of which is in Joshua Jonathan's list above), so this is not actually a point for notability assertion. Agricola44 (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete non-notable as a writer, monk or musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep was leaning delete, but the CBC Radio interview combined with all of the minor independent sources seems enough to meet WP:GNG for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ran a Lexis Search for \"Brad Warner" Buddhism\ and got 12 results. 6 were significant coverage of him, 5 were brief mentions where he got at least one graph. 1 was a false hit. There has been significant coverage of him or his ideas in: The Belfast Telegraph, The Manchester Evening News, Daily Camera, and the National Post. And he has been quoted in articles by: The Washington Post and the Toronto Star (same article), and the Lowell Sun. The article will need to be fixed, but topic is notable clearly. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems as if 'delete' commenters have an axe to grind. Religious or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.247.200 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The folks commenting above have dug up enough sourcing that, taken as a whole, mean that the subject meets GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brad_Warner&oldid=1137643581"