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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Chan[edit]

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

Biography of a religious practitioner that lacks the significant coverage in independent sources required to demonstrate notability. Mkativerata (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. MLA (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability in sources Pi (Talk to me! ) 09:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've included a third party reference to this article. Edmund was interviewed in 1992 by the Femine magazine (Volume 222, Published on 20th. July 1993), an international publications by the Life Publishers Group. More information about the validity of this publication can be found by reading Media Chinese International. Please search for 'Feminine'. I've also managed to find the printed copy of that old magazine from my old cupboard. I'm not sure if I need to scan the pages from the magazine and post it here for reference, or shall I made a video recording?

The purpose I created a page for Edmund is that he was referenced from the article - Heart Sutra. If we delete this page of Edmund, is that meant we have to delete the portion on Heart Sutra as well? Is that so difficult to expand articles on Buddhism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhammananda (talk • contribs) 18:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent sources not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi everyone, it seems that you guys doesn't believe on the notability of the reference. Give me some time, perhaps a week, let me scan the Feminine Magazine and put it here. Dhammananda (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The issue here is notability, and more specifically a person's notability, and not verifiability (or what you call validity). In essence, you need to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A single interview in the Feminine Magazine is not going to change that. --Muhandes (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muhandes, thanks for your explanation. If a single interview is not going to change that, than we can provide more sources. The fact that a person is not known by the majority of wikipedia's admin does not establish the fact that the person has no significant coverage. Wikipedia has grown so big that it is no more contained in a single cultural viewpoint, nor a groups of cultural viewpoint. We are lucky that the wikipedia was not founded in China. As for example, majority of people from China may not even heard about Jimmy Wales, but this does not establish the fact that Jimmy has no notability. In this example, we have to provide enough room for the page Jimmy Wales to expand, before the Communist Party delete it. If it is deleted, we would not have the wikipedia of today. My humble objective is just to help on editing and correcting pages about Buddhism, which any Buddhist scholar will agree that the current Wikipedia articles on subjects about Buddhism is full of bias facts. Given the nature and sensitivity about religion, and even about Buddhism which has many sects and traditions, the wikipedia has fail to provide a neutral point of view. It is not my purpose to promote any person, nor to propagate any other agenda here, my humble work is just to see the Buddhist Portal as it is on the Five Pillars. Let's all expand the encyclopedia we love so much without prejudice. In some certain case, deleting a page is actually a hindrance for a non-bias encyclopedia, and it is only when we all here are mature enough to act in more inclusive way, that we can hope for a real universal online encyclopedia. Dhammananda (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dhammananda, there is no need to take this personally. If Edmund Chan is notable, I'm sure you can provide a number of reliable, independent, secondary sources, and we will all be happy to keep the article. --Muhandes (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2011 (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.