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.
Comment - On the basis of initial searches, certainly seems to fail WP:NPROF but there's a bit of information that might point to GNG so will check that out. He is the co author of this recently published book: [1]. This is the only book I found, and it is too new to meet WP:NAUTHOR but pointing it out as there is some publicity related to it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:RS says, inter alia: Steven A. Tainer is one of the first students of Tibetan Buddhism in the West. He has studied Eastern contemplative traditions intensively for forty years with many Tibetan, Chinese, and Korean masters [...] Steven has served on the faculty of the Institute for World Religions and the Berkeley Buddhist Monastery since 1995. He is a faculty member of the Kira Institute (www.kira.org), which explores the interface between modern, scientifically-framed perspectives and matters involving human values. He is also the co-founder and Editor of WoK (www.waysofknowing.net/) (Page 24). Now being the founder and editor of a website is not enough for GNG, and serving on faculty is not enough for NPROF, but this write up itself looks like SIGCOV in a reliable secondary source. It is not just this one, either. The IAS, no less, mentions him [2] which also tells us: Steven Tainer is in the unique position of being trained as a philosopher of science (at the University of Michigan), before starting on a dual career in computer science and philosophy. In his first capacity, he was director of the product design and training departments for Cubicomp Corporation, a computer graphics company. There are plenty more. This person looks notable to me, and there appears to be plenty to say about him in an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! Steven Tainer is a person whose biography describes those of this century who are integrating Eastern thought into Western culture. He is an exquisite example of this phenomenon and has substantial credentials to qualify him, as listed in his biography. ( Do we need a new category for this?) Also, as described in his biography, Steven's personal philosophy embodies humility, and he has not acted to raise his personal profile or gain recognition and praise... he has avoided such activities. But please don't let this 'low profile' confuse the issue. He is a notable part of a fascinating cultural phenomenon and philosophical/spiritual renaissance in our country, in our culture, and is a person of great influence (his contributions delineated in this Wiki article), important in our time and going forward. His details elucidate this cultural phenomenon. JeanneCourtney (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia JeanneCourtney. His own low profile won't count against him. The article will be kept or not based on what others have said about him, particularly in reliable secondary sources (books, research papers, documentaries, etc.) As above, I think others have said enough, but we will see if anyone disagrees. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion of what makes someone notable. Who is writing about Tainer? Where are they writing it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The two sources found by Sirfurboy are the best case for keep, but I think they are quite borderline and would prefer a bit more substantial coverage. The IAS source only has a short paragraph on Tainer, and he seems mainly to be covered as background to a collaboration that they planned to work on together. The other source is from a reliable publisher, but the author is not really in the same field, and the coverage is again not massively in-depth. I tried to find other supporting sources but could only find passing mentions. Shapeyness (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (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.