Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Hariharananda (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Whether sources are readily available for free has no bearing on their notability. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Paramahamsa Hariharananda
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject fails WP:N and one of only two references provided fail WP:RS. The Miami Herald obituary, which is not sourced at the official website of the Miami Herald and is not available in full, falls under WP:1E. Lightweight religious leader mentioned only in websites and publications of his own followers. Shannon Rose (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Shannon Rose (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep— Just a simple search establishes the notability and presence of secondary sources. See for ex: Google book results, Google news results. However, citations, copyediting of the article is necessary as per wikipedia quality guidelines. --Nvineeth (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! Please note that the search examples you gave, namely Google book results, Google news results are for Paramahamsa Prajnanananda and not for Paramahamsa Hariharananda. But if you're implying that Paramahamsa Prajnanananda's books are sufficient references to establish the subject's notability because they mention Paramahamsa Hariharananda, please be aware that Paramahamsa Prajnanananda is the successor of Paramahamsa Hariharananda (ref. 1), and so his writings don't exactly constitute "reliable, third-party, published sources" per WP:RS nor establish notability per WP:GNG specifically "Independent of the subject." Thanks! – Shannon Rose (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mistake, I just mixed up :). Check these searches : Google books and Google news. We have secondary sources, like Times of India, Chicago Tribute, Washington Post etc., to mention a few., I see no problems with reliable, third-party, published sources. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's alright, we all make mistakes. You make me smile with this latest report of alleged "reliable, third-party, published sources" because, as I'm sure you've already thought, I already did those searches before filing the AfD and so I am absolutely sure that the case is solid. There are no reliable, third-party, published sources in those search results. As an example, I will give you the Washington Post one. That bit was taken from the Religion Events section where readers email the Post to notify them of events they are hosting or celebrating (please scroll at the bottom of the page to verify this fact). The announcement only said that the Baltimore-Washington Kriya Yoga Center will be sponsoring a free event in celebration of Paramahamsa Hariharananda's birthday, then it was followed by an announcement of event sponsored by the Mormons, the Washington National Cathedral, etc. How is that even a "source," Nvineeth? What is it a source for? You see, this is the problem, there is really no reliable, third-party, published source for about 90% of the article's contents, and it is Wikipedia policy that if there are no reliable sources then the article should be deleted. I also observed that you are confusing news with ads (such as the Washington Post one) and opinion pieces. Reliable_sources is quite clear on this, "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Times of India article is not an opinion piece. As is apparent from both the url and the organization of the red section boxes at the top, this is a "Cities" article, a regular news piece.  For an example of an opinion piece, see e.g. this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 13:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: What I found alarming about this biography is that it is essentially unreferenced (barring his birth and death date). Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier versions like and  have many more references.  I just reverted to a more recent version, (by the nominator of the last AfD, who withdrew it). John Z (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Miami Herald obit and other sources and discussion in the first AfD.John Z (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Miami Herald obituary is WP:1E and the other sources you speak about are non-existent. The first AfD is gone, this is a new one, the discussions in the first AfD don't apply here unless you wish to bring them up in detail specifically for this AfD. The bulk of the details in the article, roughly 90%, are not sourced from the references you provided. Kriya: Finding the True Path and Sri Yukteswar: A Biography fails WP:RS as they are self-published by some unknown author. The further readings you listed are both by Paramahamsa Prajnanananda, the successor of the subject, thus failing WP:GNG (please refer to the part explaining "Independent of the subject."). Perhaps you're wondering why I said that both further readings were by Paramahamsa Prajnanananda's when A Blessing in Disguise: 39 Life Lessons from Today's Greatest Teachers has the name of Andrea Joy Cohen as the author. Please know that the said book is a compilation of essays written by over 20 spiritual teachers (Rachel Naomi Remen, Dean Ornish, Linda Schierse Leonard, etc.), and the one mentioning the subject (twice) was written by no other than Paramahamsa Prajnanananda (I invite everyone with an Amazon.com account to investigate this fact yourself here). Again this fails WP:GNG. Thank you! – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:1E has nothing to do with obituaries, and a substantial obit in a major paper is usually taken as strong evidence of notability. It is of course available in full, though not freely online without registration. The prior discussion still seems relevant and convincing. Books by and about a person are essentially always proper for "works" and "further reading", whether they are reliable or independent or not.  The book about Hariharananda and the chapter in the book by Cohen are by his disciple Prajnanananda, true, but they are published and edited by independent people and organizations, and so do go toward proving notability IMHO.  I didn't provide any new references, just restored some of the ones that were earlier in the article, and pointed to a couple earlier versions that had more references.  I gave better bibliographic info for the True Path and Yukteswar books currently cited in the article, they seem to be independent and published by Sanskrit Classics Publishers.John Z (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there exists no rule (even a commonsense one) exempting obituaries from WP:1E. If such is one's only major coverage then it falls under WP:1E. Paramahamsa Prajnanananda is the subject's successor (not just a disciple), he leads the organization once led by the subject, thus anything written by Paramahamsa Prajnanananda about the subject will fail WP:RS and will fail to establish WP:N. Sanskrit Classic Publishers is Swami Satyeswarananda (I invite everyone to check the evidence), it does not carry any other title save his own (i.e. self-published). Self-published books don't meet the stringent requirement of WP:RS. Bottom line, Miami Herald WP:1E (+ where is the real article?) and the bulk of it is original research. – Shannon Rose (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cander0000 explains below why WP:1E is not relevant here. The obit is at the link provided, at the Herald site and in physical newspapers. The question is not reliability of Prajnanananda's writings, but their independence in order to show notability, and I argue above why they should be considered sufficiently independent. The state of the current version is not too relevant to AfD, some of the facts are in the references cited, or were referenced in earlier versions of the article. The gnews and gbooks searches given by Nvineeth above provide more (clearly independent and reliable) references showing notability.  You may be right about Sanskrit Classic Publishers.John Z (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cander0000 was giving his opinion why he doesn't believe that WP:1E is "fairly applied " here, not that it is irrelevant (you are the only one saying that). His issue is: is it being fairly applied?, I will address that. The gnews and gbooks searches given by Nvineeth were for Paramahamsa Prajnanananda, not for the subject. You should have at least clicked on them to see what comes up before asserting that they are "(clearly independent and reliable) references showing notability." For not even one such thing comes up in those searches. What comes up are either books by Paramahamsa Prajnanananda (failing WP:RS) or about Paramahamsa Prajnanananda and not the subject. You said that the question has nothing to do with the reliability of Paramahamsa Prajnanananda's writings. No one here is actually judging their reliability, he may be writing pure facts, we do not know. But regardless, what we have to eventually accept here are rules that were approved long ago by community consensus for commonsense reasons to safeguard the integrity of our articles, and one of them is WP:RS which states that "articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources" not third-party published sources. There exists a comma between "third-party" and "published." You misunderstood it to mean that it is okay who ever wrote it as long as it is a third or disinterested party who published it, that is not the rule. The rule is that a reference should be reliable, should be third-party, and should be published (as opposed to original research). Do you see where I am coming from? Paramahamsa Prajnanananda, being the subject's direct successor, is not a third-party source. Now, what happens if we don't have reliable sources to support the contents of the article? It is very clearly stated again in WP:RS "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If the writings of Paramahamsa Prajnanananda is not a reliable, third-party, published source and Swami Satyeswarananda's are, as you have admitted, also not reliable per another rule (namely, RS) then what else do we have about the guy? Nothing! And so we have to delete the article. Why are you finding it so hard to find reliable, third-party, published source about the guy except for that unverifiable WP:1E Miami Herald obituary? Simple... because he is unnotable. You would have a good number of reliable, third-pary, published source if he is notable. I'm really sorry, but this is the fact. – Shannon Rose (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nvineeth made a mistake at first, linking to searches for Prajnanananda, but he corrected it. As Paramahamsa  is an honorific,  searching on (Hariharananda Kriya) also helps - 16 gnews hits and 57 gbooks hits.   I argued above why the particular sources by Prajnanananda  used here here may be considered reliable, third-party, published sources. I understand what you are saying about the comma, but the publisher and editor is relevant to the "third-partyness"; it is a matter of judgment.  For notability / AfD it is worth noting that  clearly independent editors and publishers thought Hariharananda  notable enough to have a book or article on him.   The Herald  obituary is of course not unverifiable.  The gnews searches have articles from several other major outlets - Times of India, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Daily Herald, which are not opinion or advertising.  There's also Awakening to Consciousness  By Sandra Heber - Percy, that covers Hariharananda on about 15 pages. This Princeton University Press book cites Hariharananda's book on Kriya Yoga.John Z (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Meat of the article is unsourced and doesn't appear to be possible with no available independent RS. لenna  vecia  23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't agree WP:1E is fairly applied here. The obituary does mark/ is triggered by the event of his death, but the article is not asserting notabilty because of his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs)
 * Regardless of why his death was allegedly given coverage in the Herald (we can speculate all we want about the specifics of their motive), the glaring reality that we have here is that it was the subject's only notable coverage, which is exactly what WP:1E is all about. The obituary is his only claim to fame, so to speak. That is the only reliable, third-party, published source that we (believe we) have to consider that he may be notable. All the rest were just written by his also unnotable successor. And if we are going to keep this grossly-unsourced entry just for that obituary then it will violate every principle that has been painstankingly established through time to make sure that we have an encyclopedia that we can be proud of. – Shannon Rose (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment, Shannon Rose, you are misreading WP:1E: it refers not to one source but to one event. The obituary might function as a source substantiating statements about several different events.  In any case, a gnews search (all dates) on this guy's name gives roughly ten results.  I'm not going to get into the details -- perhaps he isn't notable -- but I'd like to help keep this discussion from being derailed by a misinterpretation of WP:1E.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for pointing that out. I know that, and it is the meat of my contention regarding the WP:1E factor as you will see if you will follow the flow of my argument throughout. I just mentioned "source" afterwards as an addition because, from the time the AfD was set and up to this point, the obituary is ALSO our only reliable, third-party, published source. I'm sorry if I left you with the impression that I'm mixing up WP:RS and WP:N matters, they are interrelated but I am fully aware which is which. The event was his death, the coverage was the obituary, which is being argued against the AfD as both a reference and proof of notability. And so I am trying to hit two birds with one stone in my replies because, you know, in AfDs the exact same issues just gets repeated over and over and I want to make sure I've plastered everything in place, as much as possible within a single reply per person, because I cannot be possibly watching this thing everytime. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, I have now read the Miami Herald article (easily accessible if one can use Nexis -- in any event it is hardly "unverifiable") and found another one in the Calgary Herald. The obituary covers not only his death but his life and accomplishments.  There's no problem at all with WP:1E here and I think he meets WP:N. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that the article is "easily accessible if one can use Nexis" is like saying that it is "easy" to tie your legs around your neck if you can do yoga. The "easy" part is deceiving because the task requires something apart from the ordinary and is therefore not "easy" at all (Nexis is a paid service). It is no good using newspaper articles that only you can read to support your stance. Now, granting for the sake of argument that you've really read the Miami Herald obituary and that there exists another obituary in the Calgary Herald (which I highly doubt) then it is still WP:1E because the coverage is for the same one event. A person only dies once, and we don't need a PhD to know that. But, as I have said, that is just for the sake of argument. Please provide a direct link to the articles so that we can officially verify, examine and discuss them. – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1, Strongly suggest you re-read WP:AGF. 2, there is no policy/requirement (e.g. in WP:RS) that a reference be available on-line (or at no cost, for that matter); your lack of access to high-quality resources is no-one else's problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. I strongly suggest you read WP:V, specifically where it states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The fact is, only you can see your alleged WP:1E Calgary Herald obituary. It is not in the archives of the Calgary Herald website, the same is true with the Miami Herald obituary. Granting for the sake of argument that they do exist, how do we assess if they are paid ads, opinion pieces or news reports? Such distinction should be made per Reliable_sources which states that "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Anyone can edit an article and pull a reference out of thin air complete with page number and other invented details. Should we let it there just for the purpose of assuming good faith? It will be a complete disaster. Using WP:AGF to justify this is just plain wikilawyering. 2. Telling me that my lack of access to your ghost reference is no-one else's problem is just plain nasty (I am not stupid to pay money just to read old newspaper articles). It is actually your problem because only you have access to your references, even the official websites of those publications housing an extensive archive of articles don't, making your claim spurious. WP:RS clearly states, "Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist." Where is the archived copy of your references? You must present it because someone is contesting their existence and, if they do exist, their quality. Nevertheless, even if you are able to do so, those two obits (or even a million) will just amount to WP:1E as they only cover one event. – Shannon Rose (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to look up the word "solipsism" in a dictionary: the fact that you can't^ see this source doesn't mean that only I can. (^Actually, the right way to put this is: the fact that you are unwilling to do so, using the suggestions I left on the article talk page.)  There isn't the slightest problem with WP:V here.  Anyway, it's hardly worth arguing over at this point, since the article will undoubtedly be kept. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to look up the word "hyperbole" in a dictionary since you seem to dissect and interpret sentences in a most literal way at the preschool level. The fact that I don't see this supposed source doesn't mean that you can. For all we know the source may not even exist or, if it does, it could be an ad or an opinion piece and cannot be used to state facts perReliable_sources (even if it is a genuine news report it will not pass WP:1E to establish notability, it will just be counted as one reliable source). I applaud your confidence that the article will undoubtedly be kept, but that's all you have at the moment. 90% of the article is still unsourced and there is still no proof that the subject is notable. – Shannon Rose (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Last time I !voted "Keep", with the caveat "cleanup article and merge criticism section into body of article". The article still needs cleanup, and the criticism section is still there, which may be one reason why we're here again. He is arguably notable, but it will always be difficult to find neutral, third-party sources for his life story, and for the issue of his claims and counter claims about whether he was a disciple of Sri Yukteswar (my personal 'reliable sources' at the source all say "no", so how reliable can those newspaper sources be, since they could only be based on the subject's claims?). I'm leaning towards Meh... Priyanath talk 04:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to Shannon Rose's questions on my talk page:
 * Meh, because he's notable enough to keep, and the article almost surely will be kept again, but it doesn't solve the problems with the article. Going through this exercise all over again is not very helpful, unless it causes some editors stay with the article over time and keep it on track (which didn't happen after the last AfD, thus my skeptical and indifferent 'meh').
 * I agree that the Times of India article reads more like an opinion piece, whether it's stated there or not.
 * Non-English sources can be helpful when there is a dearth of English sources available. But that French language source was just suggested reading, and there seems nothing wrong with that.
 * WP:1E doesn't apply, as others have pointed out, because he wasn't notable for his death, but because of what he did while living. The obituaries make that very clear.
 * Regarding the discussion above about online news sources behind a firewall - the fact that it appeared in a mainstream print newspaper means that it fulfills the requirement for WP:RS. We assume good faith that the person using the source is doing it accurately. The fact that the only online version is behind a firewall is immaterial. There is a print version that can be found in the right places, probably behind a librarywall.
 * So yes, Keep is right, with the hope that some editors will 'keep' with the article so it doesn't come back here again. Priyanath talk 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, most notably an obituary in a major US newspaper. Alansohn (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have one from a major Canadian newspaper as well, if Shannon-Rose didn't persist in deleting it. Does anyone have any suggestions as to where to get some assistance with that problem? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a look through the article history, and I have serious concerns about the manner in which the article has been edited in what appears to be disruptive fashion by the nominator. User:Shannon Rose seems to have a clear lack of understanding of WP:BLP1E, which has been used in the nomination as a rationalization for deletion. I have used obituaries from the Miami Herald and other independently-published major newspapers and magazines to create and expand several hundred Wikipedia biographical articles. Obituaries are not establishing notability based on the circumstances of an individual's death (e.g., "Man killed after being impaled on telephone pole in freak trampoline accident"), the issue raised by WP:BLP1E. Published obituaries written in such publications are summaries of the person's life, which usually provide almost all of the details needed to reference details of the individual's life history and to establish notability. The use (or more accurately, abuse) of WP:RS and WP:V as justification to remove clearly reliable sources about the subject in major newspapers with a reputation for fact checking only demonstrates further problems with understanding Wikipedia policy. WP:V does NOT require that all or any of a source be available online. The links provided and the title, date and pages included in references all satisfy the requirements of WP:V. Statements by the nominator that these are "alleged" references that are somehow not acceptable are patently unacceptable. I'd love to see additional sources that would satisfy even the nominator's demands for sources, but what's in the article now meets the standards of WP:BIO in establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The reasons given in the nomination do not seem to have held up to scrutiny. Chillum  16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Obituary in Miami Herald (republished inCalgary Herald), both of which have been verified by me and other discussants here, establish sufficient notability. Comment: User:Shannon Rose has made strong arguments above for deletion of the article, often based on poor understanding of wikipedia policies such as WP:V, and WP:1E; I urge Shannon to read the explanations of the applicability of these policies provided by Alansohn and Nomoskedasticity. In particular Shannon should not be removing sources from the article, simple because he/she does not have access to them. Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note Shannon Rose is in the Penalty Box for 220 hours, unless they get an early reprieve. Priyanath talk 01:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Death covered by Miami Herald obit. However, article does need cleaned up. Wacko Jack O   12:15, 14 April 2009 (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.