Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Narayanananda


 * 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, default to Keep. WaltonOne 14:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Swami Narayanananda

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I think this fails WP:BIO. There are claims of notability but no sources cited that establish that notability. There is no indication in this article that this swami has been the subject of multiple articles in independant publications. Delete TheRingess (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- TheRingess (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. A google search suggests that there are a lot of sources available, many of which look appropriate. JulesH 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The swami has not done much to advertise his books or movement, so that is why there seems not to be many 'independent sources' commenting or reviewing the books. Is it justified to delete the whole article on such a slim basis? His work has had great significance for thousands of people, though this has not been mentioned much in the English press or periodicals. Should a subject not be included in Wikipedia just because it is not well-known in the press or university circles etc.? As JulesH (above) mentions, there are a lot of sources found using a Google search. Toktok 18:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We do have notability criteria -- sure, he may be notable among his movement, but is he notable outside it? Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion: it ought to be notable - and one of the ways it can be notable is that it is at least mentioned in Wikipedia. If you limit Wikipedia to phenomena that are notable only in the opinion of in the university society, and which may show a lot of references, you cut off some of the real world. If that is the policy - ok - delete the whole thing - it is to your and many other readers' loss, and the value of Wikipedia is significantly reduced. woodpecker 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reference to a site which is 'commercial' has been deleted. Ok - but if that is the only place you can get further information, you might keep it? Other places in Wikipedia you see references to Official pages - and they may also contain 'commercial' elements. (PS. I am not trying to sell anything, and I am not part of the movement). woodpecker 07:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quotation has been removed, although full reference details (title of book, page no.) have been provided. The very short quotation gives a good idea of some of the author's viewpoints, so why is that to be deleted? woodpecker 07:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per JulesH. Baka man  22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.Anwar 12:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but quotations should be moved to Wikiquote. See Guide_to_layout. IPSOS (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2007 (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.