Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Ji-on Tokudo Postal

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 delete. There's a duplicate "delete" opinion.  Sandstein  18:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Ji-on Tokudo Postal

[edit]
Susan Ji-on Tokudo Postal (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)

Minimal coverage from secondary sources. Blackguard 16:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough also appears to be the co-author of a cookbook that's been widely cited for decades.[1][2][3][4][5]--Jahaza (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've contributed additional secondary sources of an interview in SweepingZen [6] and the announcement of a book of tributes via Empty Hand Zen Center. [7] Additional sources will be forthcoming to continue building the bio. SJTP (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is genuinely something that personally I wouldn't want to delete since Susan seems like a great woman who has achieved great things and her family should be proud of her. With a heavy hand I do have to, unfortunately, state that one source from the NYT is not satisfactory to pass WP:NOTE. @Jahaza: As you very well know WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid AfD argument. Also, she's not even on the front cover of the cookbook itself and a passing reference to Susan is not satisfactory as per WP:GNG. @SJTP: It is not a good idea to 'vote' for keeping more than once, please change your second 'keep' to a 'comment'. Just because others do it, it doesn't give you an excuse to do the same - just like speeding on a highway. If there are other articles that have not passed WP:GNG then let me know and I'll AfD them too. This is probably my most difficult delete in an AfD thus far, but a necessary one. I even contemplated on WP:IGNORE, but letting this page stay won't really improve Wikipedia. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 16:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking at the wrong edition of the cookbook. The original edition does have her name on the cover[8]. It's odd that you write "one source from the NYT" since I explicitly mention two other secondary sources in my comment.--Jahaza (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza: again, mentioned in passing. The whole article is not about Susan, thus does not re-affirm WP:GNG source criteria. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2017 (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.

No Talk page found to type this comment: This article, after all the hard work that went into it with intent for expansion, was treated unfairly in being deleted so quickly without ample time for discussion. Why such a hurry to do so? Wikipedia is at a disadvantage for this deletion. It appears administrators treat articles about women arbitrarily for deletion; this bio entry about Susan Postal was modeled after many other entries on Wikipedia, namely and mostly about male characters of similar notability. How can those exist or escape monitoring from administrators? Ample secondary sources about Susan Postal have been provided and more were to come. An article on the subject of this deletion inconsistency could be helpful to admins who invest time in deleting articles, rather than in researching to improve more articles. Readers of Wikipedia could have benefitted from learning about Postal's contribution to society, which could be useful for research purposes. This user may start such an article about the rush to delete articles on Wiki, yes, at the risk of getting deletion enthusiasts rushing to remove it. If this comment gets deleted, then it goes without saying...??? SJTP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_Ji-on_Tokudo_Postal&oldid=1138808653"