Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajahn Sundara

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. Tone 09:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajahn Sundara

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication of notability. There are a few books that mention her, but those that cover her in some detail don't seem quite independent to me, for example this which is a first-person narrative. Google News came up empty. Huon (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too bad, seems an interesting woman. There is passing mention in a reliable source here, but it isn't sufficient. Could be more reliable sources about her later. Maybe USERFY the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:vellino As the person who drew Huon's attention to this article, I *beg* you NOT to delete it. The reason I brought it to his attention was that I was trying to understand in what way my proposed article for another monastic in this tradition was not acceptable (it had been rejected twice).

Monastics in the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition have very few ordained nuns and deleting one of the only two such nuns who already have an entry in the Wikipedia (the other is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_Candasiri) is, in my opinion, an excessively zealous application of the Wikipedia rules. There is nothing controversial about this entry, neither I nor anyone else (that I am aware of) is objecting to its existence. You might put a warning (as I have seen done on many other articles) that it doesn't meet the guidelines or is insufficiently referenced. The fact that this entry has been around for over 12 years and done no harm justifies it for being "grandfathered" in some way.

Wikipedians who guard the integrity of entries in the Wikipedia should consider context. The context of many (noteworthy) monastics is that they (mostly) practice an oral tradition. They don't write much (generally) and are rarely referenced in what the Wikipedia considers standard ways (in print, in the news etc.). Noteworthiness, among monastics is often simply that they have been (and continue to be) ordained after long periods of time. Ajahn Sundara, Ajahn Candasiri, Ajahn Sucitto, Ajahn Sumedho and so on are among the (very rare) elderly western monastics in an important tradition. They deserve to stay... and I deserve not to be re-born as an ant for having drawn your attention to this article :-) [is humour allowed?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellino (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also part of the context in this case is the question of Bikkhuni ordinations in Thailand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhuni#Thailand

Un-necessarily delegitimizing Ajahn Sundara by deleting her entry simply because it hasn't been maintained up to current standards would not have beneficial consequences for the public at large and infinitesimally small beneficial consequences (if any) for the Wikipedia. Does consequentialist ethics have any baring on this question? I think it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellino (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been instrumental in founding and leading religious communities. Meets notability guidelines. MurielMary (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets the requirements for notability, backed up by independent references of sufficient quality to meet WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ahunt, which independent references? I don't see a single reliable third-party source in the article. A speaker biography for a talk she gave, an interview, and her monastic community all aren't independent. Huon (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated this entry with a reference to her interview in France Culture, to an event announcement at the British Museum and with more references to her publications, including a book chapter which chronicles the history of Thai Forest Tradition to the West, a book chapter in Enquiring Mind in which she (and other important Women in Buddhism) is interviewed as well as her other publications. I also updated her photo and metadata in the Infobox. Hoping that all this does the trick to prevent my re-incarnation as an ant. :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellino (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 September 2018 (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.