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. based on recent sources brought to this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Sheng-yen[edit]

Lu Sheng-yen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. There is simply not enough coverage of this person in reliable sources, most sources being used in the article are primary. The article makes some grandiose statements about him, but none of them are reliably sourced (some were inserted by SPAs) so it's difficult to know how influential this person actually is in China/Taiwan. SparklyNights (t) 16:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - this person has "references" largely because of the grandiose claims of primary sources. When the ones from the organization are removed, this article gets a lot thinner. I think this should either be deleted or merged into the True Buddha School article as a subsection. Kazamzam (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. S5A-0043Talk 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, sources given by Cunard appear reliable. JimRenge (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2023 (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.