Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiny Buddha

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.  Sandstein  15:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Buddha

Tiny Buddha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The content of this article, including its context appears unsuitable for Wikipedia, for not being encyclopedic. ♥ Shri Sanam Kumar ♥ 13:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article reads more like a promotional piece. If the necessary changes where made, I'd change my vote to keep.

Keep and Revise, as suggested by the article's original author. Though, why he didn't do that earlier, is beyond me. (Not an attack, but genuine puzzlement.)

• Keep and Revise. The article refers to a popular website entity with a large world-wide following, covers relevant topics which include publications of said entity. It goes without saying that the article must be revised to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone but to go from that to a full-on deletion would be unwise. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revised History section to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone. Any other revisions would be more than welcomed. --Omer Toledano (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not convinced with the sources. We require significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. All I see are passing mentions or articles written by the author of the site. I do not see any secondary coverage and we specifically require that. I would be glad to change by !vote, but after extensive searching I was unable to find any. Please not that the Forbes and HuffingtonPost sources are contributor articles (not staff article) and hence count was
  WP:SPS - not good enough for notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable web site; sources are not there for GNG or CORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I concur with the comments above, nothing actually convincing and there's nothing to suggest the current sources aren't PR or republished PR and triviality, because they in fact are. A keep vote acknowledging the concerns is enough to suggest this is in fact deleted, regardless of any notability, and that's clear enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 20 November 2016 (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.