Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajinder Singh (Sant Mat)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rajinder Singh (Sant Mat)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was proposed for deletion by PROD, and another editor seconded the proposal. The PROD reason was "Somewhat promotional article without any independent sources, and no indication that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines." The PROD was contested with the edit summary "I believe he is not [sic] notable enough, see http://www.sos.org/page/global-leader.html". However, that is a page on the website of the organisation that Rajinder Singh is the head of, and tells us in glowing terms about his "life and work", which, it informs us, "can be summed up as a continuous journey of love and selfless service". The article cites no independent sources, and I have searched, and found no coverage of him in independent reliable sources. The article was originally written by a single purpose account, as unambiguous promotion. There have been attempts to make the article less promotional, but it has never ceased to be substantially promotional, with a very large proportion of the editing being done by editors with unambiguous conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete not WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:ANYBIO #2: Sant Rajinder Singh is the spiritual head and leader of a spiritual organization called Science of Spirituality (one source said 300,000 members). He was mentioned in a Presidential Press Briefing with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow as a "spiritual leader from India". Per WP:AUTHOR #4, Sant Rajinder Singh's primary book, Inner and Outer Peace Through Meditation a meditation handbook with emphasis on world peace, contains a Forward by the Dalai Lama - who is arguably the world authority on meditation and peace - saying "I greatly appreciate Sant Rajinder Singh Ji’s contribution here to the goal of peace that we are all working towards." WorldCat shows it in 219 libraries. To further notability, Sant Rajinder Singh received various recognitions from various NY officials: NY State Senator Adriano Espaillat presented a proclamation from the State Legislature praising his “tireless work and creative genius”. Congressman Peter T. King sent a Citation, and tributes from NY State Comptroller Thomas Di Napoli, NYC Comptroller John Liu, and one each from Nassau and Suffolk County Executives Edward Mangano and Steven Bellone. Added other sources in the article, some behind commercial databases. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * from the titles of those sources, they appear to be regurgitated press releases,/ promotional announcements of events in local papers. What sort of significant content about the subject is actually covered in them? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a fair bit of PR material out there on this subject, but I believe the sources in the article are intellectually independent. If you disagree please be specific which ones. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are not able or willing to assert any specific substantial content about the subject actually exist in any of those sources? It is the WP:BURDEN of the person adding content to provide reliable sources. this one that you have listed], is textbook example of " passing coverage" . and this one looks to be a clipping of an advertisement from a newspaper that is hosted on a personal website? reliability and suitability appear questionable.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The New York Times says Sant Rajinder Singh was a member of a group of a few hundred world religious leaders who organized a function for the United Nations. It's a reliable source that helps to establish notability of the subject. 2) The second link is not a "personal website", it's the paper Desi Talk, owned by Parikh Worldwide Media LLC the largest Indian-American publishing group in the United States. There is no evidence that piece is an "advertisement". Finally, the purpose of this AfD is to determine if the subject is notable. Many of those sources may be small mentions, like the NYT piece. That doesn't negate their importance or inclusion for notability determination. If the subject is notable then the article stands. Maybe the sources will only have enough content to cite a 1-paragraph article, doesn't matter so long as it's notable. Notability might be established by 50 small mentions, or 2 or 3 big mentions. It doesn't matter so long as notability is established and we have enough content to write a stub article that is more than a dictionary definition. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * there are LOTS of people who participate as "one of hundreds" who do thing for the UN. hundreds of groups every day. thats not noteworthy nor is being named as one of hundreds "Significant coverage".
 * Facebook is one of the largest corporations in the world, but content posted on facebook isnt reliable. do you have evidence that that page is part of an editorial controlled reliable source portion of the media group?
 * and right now the question is can you provide significant coverage by third party reliable sources about the subject, not whether you can conjecture their might be. there might be significant coverage about my cat and I can post lots of links behind paywalls and say "trust me, with all of these links theres probably stuff to prove that hes notable. you cannot make a vague handwave, particularly when the "evidence" that you have offered is so weak. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, a group of world religious leaders doesn't happen "every day" at the UN attracting an article in the New York Times. Facebook and your cat has nothing to do with it please stick to the facts. If the subject is notable, they get an article on Wikipedia. Period. Per the Notability guidelines WP:WHYN: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page". In this case the sources have more than enough information to write more than a few sentences. The sources offer significant enough coverage to write an article, that is the spirit of the rule on "significant coverage", that is "why we have this requirement" for significant coverage (the title of the rule section). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * uhhm, no, the significant coverage is the minimum requirement and not a guarantee. AND an interview quote in the NYT is not sufficient to qualify as "significant content about the subject.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The importance of the Science of Spirituality (aka 'Sawan Kirpal Ruhani') can be found in this Encyclopedia which says it has 300,000 followers worldwide; in Europe it is the best known form of the religion based on Radha Soami, which in total has 3 million followers world wide. SoS's main publications are translated into 50 languages. It would seem strange for the spiritual head of a religion with so many followers around the world to be non-notable. We have not even begun to mine sources in those 50 languages. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:GNG, etc. Qworty (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I've re-written the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nonnotable. THe listed awards are of low merit. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based mainly on the encyclopedia entry. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * rename to Science of Spirituality and then severely trim and refocus- while the encyclopedia mentions Rajinder Singh, it is a trivial passing mention stating that he is the current leader of the organization, but there is probably enough content reliable sources for a basic article about the movement-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was rewritten from scratch by me using only the available sources, all reliable, so there is enough sourcing to write an article. Per WP:NOTE->WP:WHYN : "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." That is the spirit of the "significant coverage" requirement, it is "why we have this requirement". It doesn't matter if the facts are spread out between 10 sources with small mentions, or condensed all into one solid source, so long as there are sources to provide content to write an article with, which is evidently so in this case, the "significant coverage" requirement is met. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:42, a million trivial passing mentions does not guarantee "significant coverage". Significant coverage = significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are citing an off-beat essay which anyone can (and does) edit. Here's the thing: the mathematical count of words can be irrelevant, the guidelines say nothing about physical count of words for a reason. A reliable source might say "He won a Major Prize". That's five words. Is it significant? Of course. Because we look at the content of the words, not the mathematical count of words. "Trivial" means stuff like "the person was at a location on Jan 1", trivial content like that. "Significant" content means exactly that, it is of significance towards notability and useful in writing a full article. It's the content (and context) of the words, not the mathematical number of words. If you disagree, take it up at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. 42 is a great essay for teaching newbies about Notability but a terrible thing to cite in a rules discussion, stick with the actual guidelines. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * if you dont recognize WP:42 as being the easy to read version of WP:GNG and think that it is some fringe essay .... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:42 says things WP:GNG does not... that you would favor this essay over the actual guideline.. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2012 (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.