Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life And Philosophy Of Swami Vivekananda


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no delete !votes. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Life And Philosophy Of Swami Vivekananda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As Nominator i Withdraw my AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Does not meet wiki notablity criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * article creator's comment: this book of Banhatti is most probably the best (or one of the best) research works on Swami Vivekananda. Google Scholar, Google Books etc show this book has been cited in other research works! --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I have heard of "Life And Philosophy Of Swami Vivekananda" before. I didn't read but I have seen it on various sites. The book covers the life, personality, ideas of Swami Vivekananda. Contains his own speeches and writings as well as accounts left by his disciples. It seems to add new informations on the life and thinkings of this giant of modern India and I really don't see any reason to delete this article.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Certainly, Swami Vivekananda is notable. As such, it is my opinion that any reliable third-party book that examines his life and philosophy should be deemed to meet the broad notability criteria of Wikipedia. Perhaps this won't be the most frequented article on Wikipedia, but it still enhances Wikipedia to have a short article describing a significant book about a personality of Vivekananda's stature. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia, notability is NOT INHERITED. This book needs to have independent reviews to be considered notable. LK (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * comment : please note that the main idea of moving this to AFD was to find if it is really notable according to wikipedia, is saying "probably the best" and supposedly seen in many sites would amount to be notablity ?, if any body come up with any other source of notablity interms of citation in newspaper or other authors, I will with draw AFD. Shrikanthv (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment (continued) These books might had been reviewed in newspapers. But, note these books were published in 1995. So, it is useless to search those reviews in world wide web because Indian news archives don't go back to that time. It is unfortunate that in few/many AFD discussion this point is not noted. Lack of online/digital format news, magazine reviews does not necessarily mean they did not get any coverages/reviews. This can be searched manually which is of course a damn difficult job. Google Scholars and Google Books will give some hints that this book is regularly cited in/by other scholarly books, research papers. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2013 (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.