Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Seisen Saunders (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Seisen Saunders

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

Non notable priest. She founded a small retreat. She was the head of an organisation. She gets minor mentions in Buddhist publications. But none of that adds up to notability. Another puff piece from another SPA. A look at the bombardment of sources at time of nomination.

1 Directory listing, Primary source

2 Tricycle: The Buddhist Review is written by the subject

3 Directory listing

4 Directory listing

5 Directory listing

6 Just a quote from her

7 Not in source, Source published 2004, She was certified in 2009.

8 Passing mention.

9 Passing mention

10 Link to below

11 Routine announcement of organisation, looks like press release

12 Appears to be small/self publishing, not a reliable source. No depth of coverage.

13 Exert of above, No depth of coverage.

There is still not enough coverage about her in independent reliable sources. A search of mainstream sources found nothing good. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indepth, thrid party sources to meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a tribute page / WP:ADVOCACY, cited to directory listings and other sources not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 3 July 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.