Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Vivekananda: Messiah of Resurgent India


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) &mdash;  Yash [talk] 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda: Messiah of Resurgent India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As A nominator I withdraw this AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Does not meet notablity criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * article creator's comment: one of the most reliable "scholarly studies" on Swami Vivekananda. widely used in research works. In Wikipedia articles of Swami Vivekananda too we have cited this book multiple times. --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * comment : please note that the main idea of moving this to AFD was to find if it is really notable according to wikipedia, do let us know if any notability or proof exists in saying "most reliable" and " widely used" , if any body come up with any other source of notablity interms of citation in newspaper or other authors, I will with draw AFD myself. Shrikanthv (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the google books link above may give some idea! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Certainly, Swami Vivekananda is notable. As such, it is my opinion that any reliable third-party book that examines his life and philosophy should be deemed to meet the broad notability criteria of Wikipedia. Perhaps this won't be the most frequented article on Wikipedia, but it still enhances Wikipedia to have a short article describing a significant book about a personality of Vivekananda's stature. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * comment :please note that this AFD is not against Swami Vivekananda or his notablity but the notablity of the article about a book about him, which when searched, you may find hundreds and is it fine to add thousands of them with just mentioning they are widely used or known ? Shrikanthv (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia, notability is NOT INHERITED. This book needs to have independent reviews to be considered notable. LK (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree with the above: any reliable third-party book that examines the life and philosophy of such an historical figure should be deemed to meet the broad notability criteria of Wikipedia.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tito Dutta and others.Shyamsunder (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It appears to me that a consensus had already been reached prior to the relisting, and that the consensus is that the article shoudl be kept. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2013 (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.