Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurmukh (yoga teacher)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) —  The   Magnificentist  08:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Gurmukh (yoga teacher)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hi,

I have many issues with this page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RandoUsername (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It seems very promotional in tone. It seems the person-in-question is using Sikhism as a way to make money, mentioning private clientele and DVDs.
 * 2) I do not think Yoga is a part of Sikhism. I have seen this trend where some Hindus have tried to highjack the faith using self-described "converts" such as the one whose page is being proposed for deletion.
 * 3) There are zero reliable sources. In fact, the page seems to pass off the site "mrsikhnet" as the "sikhnet", where the latter would never mention things the former has (i.e. tout a vanity fair article; touting media coverage of self-described Sikhs is the antithesis of the philosophy)
 * 4) The name she has assumed, along with the one she gave her child, while of course it is no business of mine, are very offensive. I have never seen or known any Sikh who adopted the last name Khalsa or named their child Wahe Guru. I find these to be red flags as to the person-in-question's commitment to the faith.


 * Keep The article is a bit weak, but that's a reason to work on it, not delete it. Looking a the reasons for deletion:
 * 1) I disagree that this is an excessively promotional article. It's about someone in a business with high profile clients.
 * 2) Connection to Sikhism or lack or it is irrelevant to this discussion.
 * 3) There are reliable sources in the article, the Yoga Journal, for example, and there are many other sources available which mention her. See https://yogainternational.com/article/view/kundalinis-queen-gurmukh-kaur-khalsa for one.
 * 4)  We don't delete articles because editors dislike subjects' names or the names they give their children. Meters (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, okay? And where is the basis for that being relevant to a person who espouses Sikh philosophy. Look at the WP:Lede where it is claimed this user is a follower of Sikhism, before going into their DVD collection.
 * It is very relevant. It is plastered all over the individual's page, and it has no basis. Either talk about their yoga without Sikhism (remove it), or leave it as-is and have your argument fall flat on its face. The page is obviously using the individual's purported faith as a key point.
 * yogainternational.com is not a reliable source. No source pertaining to yoga at that level is reliable. Can you show me a link where WP has discussed the sources you're describing and has determined them worthy enough to support notability? You're trying to allege one vanity fair article from 2009 is enough for notability? Others have been deleted for much less. I find your defense vacuous.
 * We don't make articles on people who use faiths they are not born into, in order to promote their yoga courses and DVDs, which are clearly on display in the lede and early on in this article. Especially when the faith has fifty-fold less adherents than either Hinduism or Islam, thereby creating a situation where people like yourself try to excuse offensive practices like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.249.64 (talk • contribs) 23:33, July 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * This IP is RandoUsername. See Meters (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * CommentI'm open to being convinced that she is not notable, but I think there are sufficient sources available to show her notability. Again, the issue of Sikhism is irrelevant. We don't even mention it in her article (aside from a see also that should probably be removed). What she puts on her business's webpage does not determine whether her Wikipedia article should be deleted. Neither does her child's name. If there is material in the article that should not be there it can be removed, but that does not affect the notability of the subject. Meters (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject is notable. Has been written about in the Huffington Post (that called her one of the most influential yoga teachers of our time), Los Angeles Times, Toronto Sun, Los Angeles Magazine, Vanity Fair (magazine), and others. Netherzone (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep She's been covered by reliable sources over time as per . Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete being praised in a blog like Huffpo does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - John Pack Lambert Fair enough that the HuffPo is blog-ish, however there are citations in the Los Angeles Times, Toronto Sun, New York Times, Los Angeles Magazine, Vogue Magazine, The Hindu, The Times of India, Vanity Fair, Yoga Journal. Your rationale is perplexing - does the HuffPo negate these other references and disqualify the subject's notability? Netherzone (talk)
 * I was wondering about this delete !vote myself. A weak source is not a reason to delete. Are there any policy based reasons User:Johnpacklambert can cite to support deletion? Meters (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Adequate coverage and note her age, the work she did was groundbreaking in its time.  Sources provide sufficient reliability; article needs improvement in tone, but the individual's notability meets GNG.   Montanabw (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - multiple sources verifying N as "influential" and not just one of 15 million yogis, easily passes GNG Atsme 📞📧 12:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in multiple reliable independent sources over years. Arguments about Sikhism in nomination appear totally irrelevant to this discussion. Pam  D  15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is notable and has significant coverage in numerous reliable sources including Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Toronto Sun, and Los Angeles Magazine among others. Passes WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2017 (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.