Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Sundaranand


 * 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 01:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Swami Sundaranand

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable bio with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. What are you talking about? Article lists six sources. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply None of these six sources are third party reliable sources that estabilsh notability. Also, the subject is a non notable individual. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You assume. You assume that the individual is non-notable. By the way, "non" isn't a word. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof otherwise, I do not see sources for notability, any evidence? Also, thank you for the english lesson on how "non" is not a word. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Like you, I haven't had a chance to research this topic or the other hundred articles that you've nominated for deletion, so I am as utterly ignorant of the subjects as you are. But on each afd, you assert that the subject is "non notable". You don't know that, you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with it, and you have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest that you limit your assertions to subjects of which you have some knowledge. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 03:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the sources was a magazine published by the United Nations, Our Planet.  How could that not be reliable?  Again, the notion of notability appropriate for AfD's is whether there are reliable sources for a topic, not whether they are in the article already.Although this one was decently sourced,  I added a couple more anyways. AfD is supposed to be the last resort, only for articles which cannot be improved through normal editing.   He is certainly notable by my favorite test - Iheardofhimbeforesomewhere - the Christian Science Monitor quote about the ganges has gotten some play.John Z (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes sources exist and in the article but these sources do not establish this subject as notable. Also, there not multiple independent sources for which Swami Sundaranand is the subject. As is, the article still deserves a vote of Delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as mentioned just above, sources exist. I think they would be regarded as sufficient for notability for people in general. DGG (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Sources clearly assert notability, his work in promoting public awareness of glacier recession and global warming is notable by itself. Would that any of us could be a hundredth as notable. ~ priyanath talk 03:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment With the new info provided above, I change my vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin Nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin Nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2008 (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.