Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Shankarananda Saraswati (second 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. John254 14:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Swami Shankarananda Saraswati
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The text of this article was originally speedy-deleted as a CSD G4, based on the prior AfD. DRV overturned, finding this version substantially different and reliably-sourced. Still, Weak Delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 03:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep This is a bit better than the first one that was deleted, though I still think it doesn't pass WP:BIO. If the article were cleaned up to show notability then I would change my vote.TheRingess (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It is possible to find reliable sources for this article. A google search shows up quite a few reliable, published sources om the net. The article is also verifiable. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see reliable third-party sources commenting on his significance, and nothing in the mainstream press. The Google search offered above is mostly a collection of web sites run by individuals or small organizations, nothing like a press web site. He is the author of three books, at least two of which can be bought on Amazon, but there are no published book reviews that I could find. EdJohnston 05:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Keep based on new sources that have just been added to the article. The most convincing was probably reference #3, the interview on Australian radio, of which a transcript is provided, and reference #2, the article in the Australian Yoga Life magazine, which is readable as a PDF file. The articles in The Age (an Australian daily newspaper) aren't available free and I wasn't able to look at them. EdJohnston 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 04:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fan-authored page that, even while inflating the achievements of the subject, fails really to assert enough notability per WP:BIO. The listed titles do not seem to pass the test for creating notable authors either. Eusebeus 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep enough notability established but but clean up can add to it Taprobanus 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article to include references pertaining to the requirement of notability and in particular appearances in mainstream radio and newspaper. I invite the editors above who challenge the article based evidence of notability to please reviewYogidude 15:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The addition of reliable and verifiable general interest publication and media sources cements the claim of notability per Notability. Alansohn 13:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per EdJohnston and Alansohn. This is not the same article previously deleted but rather a better sourced and supported one. IPSOS (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, well done to all who improved the article. Neil   ╦  14:01, 18 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.