Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Miller (yoga teacher)


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Tim Miller (yoga teacher)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

article appears to not establish notability Stephane34 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability is well established and cited -
 * 1. Multiple ongoing citations over a decade by Yoga Journal Magazine, the preeminent publication in the industry. Article has citations from The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Vanity Fair, and Yoga Journal. Vanity Fair refers to Miller as one of Jois' "best known students," and The New York Times refers to Miller as "one of the first Ashtanga teachers in United States." Los Angeles Times refers to Miller as opening one of the first yoga centers in L.A.
 * 2. Other citations in published books, and regional newspapers.
 * 3. This user has suspicious behavior. This user has never contributed to a single article, and has nominated five different pages for AfD (all yoga teachers) Geeta Iyengar, Tim Miller (yoga teacher), Rod Stryker, and Norman Sjoman. It is possible this is a single purpose account, and the purpose is to delete articles in the Yoga genre. One of the entries she nominated for AfD Geeta Iyengar, the Los Angeles Times calls "the world's leading female yoga teacher." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As explained elsewhere, the notability of another subject has no bearing on this one, or this AfD. You would need to substantiate points 1 and 2 of your comment and 3 should probably be removed, per WP:NPA, WP:BITE and WP:CIV. Stalwart 111  22:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For 1&2 it is pretty self explanatory, the citations are in the article. I dont see how I could elaborate on a properly cited article. Are you suggesting the articles citations are not reliable sources? As for #3, I believe identifying a Single-purpose account is relevant to the discussion. This account that did the nomination is an Single-purpose account that is targeting yoga entries for deletion, with no other activity. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pointing out an SPA is fine, but the commentary on the editor's activities elsewhere doesn't add much to your argument. And my point on 1 and 2 is that putting those beyond doubt would be a better used of your energy by comparison. I left a more substantive comment on your TP, as did an admin. Stalwart 111  14:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the activities of an SPA is relevant, when the objective of the SPA is to delete a particular genre of articles (in this case BLP yoga teachers). I am not sure the point of the continuing the relevancy discussion, you think it isn't relevant, I think it is. I added two more easily obtained citations, The New York Times and Vanity Fair to the article. Interesting how we have had so much discussion here and on my talk page, but the SPA hasn't even added anything. Note there is also another contributor below calling the speedy delete comment into question, so one must wonder if both of the accounts (maybe same as the nominating account) are for the purpose of delete pages. Cheers Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I said the other articles and their relative notability is not relevant to this discussion, and it isn't. I also suggested that commenting on the nominator is a waste of time (yours included, and another person has now made the same point on your TP. Adding sources is exactly the right thing to do - keep doing that. Stalwart 111  04:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 18.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  22:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. Not a notable person. I did not find any reliable reference which shows his notability. Delete this article.Jussychoulex (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This article has multiple citations from Yoga Journal Magazine (a international circulation monthly print magazine). Are you suggesting that Yoga Journal, published since 1975 with international distribution is not a reliable source? What about San Diego Magazine, since 1948, also not a reliable source? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC). Also added citations from Vanity Fair and The New York Times. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the contribution by you is for deletion with text " *Speedy Delete. Not a notable person. I did not find any reliable reference which shows his notability. Delete this article. This is suspicious. 117.194.210.101 (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a single person is notable i.e. Geeta Iyengar, Tim Miller (yoga teacher), Rod Stryker, and Norman Sjoman. I do not know that why Single Account User is trying to protect their page by using different different single user account. I searched many sources, but i did not find it suitable for wikipedia. Jussychoulex (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources in this article are not suitable for wikipedia? The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Vanity Fair, Yoga Journal, etc...Are all these citations/publications not suitable for wikipedia? Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.210.101 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - coverage in multiple, independent WP:RS. Stalwart 111  04:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - more than sufficient coverage in reliable sources to prove notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep on the merits - there is plenty of coverage to suggest notability. I find the deletion arguments here less than persuasive. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. No specific discussions of Miller in reliable sources. Longer pieces in non-RS, and passing mentions while discussing genuinely notable things in RSes don't cut it. 210.7.71.114 (talk) 09:54, 21 May 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.