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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashin Mettacara

[edit]

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

The "blog" linked to by the article is simply a news aggregation page. The first "award" cited as a source is a self-entered, paid-for site that doesn't itself seem notable. The second award is from a site with so many categories as to be worthless. The Guardian article is by Mettacara himself, so shouldn't be used as a source. In short, I can find lots of *claims* that Mettacara is a political blogger, but can't find any actual original writing by him. As such, he's non-notable. Jonobennett (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable BLP per nom and epic fail of WP:RS. Did you check out the external links? Which two are identical? :D JJB 11:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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.