Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Geeks

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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Geeks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing, nor could I find any significant independent sources to satisfy notability. Nearly all current references are self-published, searching online didn't reveal other notable publication coverage. It's possible the coverage around the Buddhist Geeks Conference may warrant a page/stub on that topic specifically. Drewmutt (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though with the caveat that it may be ending. The existing sourcing is atrocious, but a mild WP:TROUT to the nominator for not finding "significant independent sources." I did an extremely cursory search and by the second page of results found articles about them not only in the Wired source cited, but also in The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Tech Times, and Tricycle (which is a major mainstream Buddhist magazine). Those are clearly independent, reliable sources that establish adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 19:34, 25 January 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.