Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripurari Swami


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Tripurari Swami

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A non notable swami. A promotional article based on sources that are not independent or reliable. Wikid as&#169; 03:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Well published and reviewed author. Please note his other name, Swami B. V. Tripurari when using Google Books and Google Scholar for more information. His text, The BhagavadGita: Its Feeling and Philosophy, was reviewed by Arvind Sharma in the Journal of Vaishnava Studies (affiliated with Christopher Newport University and A. Deepak Publishing, Inc.) Vol. 13, No 2/Spring 2005; . He is also known for his work with B. G. Sharma. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- since when being well published or having one review makes one notable? He is a self published author. No notability by merit of a review (BTW -- the Journal of Vaishnava Studies is tagged as well since the last year for it does not meet the criteria for inclusion). Wikid as&#169; 18:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply He is not self-published. Tattva-sandarhba, Bhagavad-gita and Aesthetic Vedanta are published by Mandala. Fredeaker (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply A review written by Arvind Sharma, and published by a journal associated with a university, is a very valid reliable source. In addition - Another book, Aesthetic Vedanta, was reviewed by Yoga Journal, and has been cited by other authors as well, see; and . Thanks Ism schism (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If every person who has a review of his work got a page in WP -- that would be right. But it is not the case, notablitity is not based on reviews, it is based on extendend coverage of the subject by independent sources. Subject of this source is his book not the person. If you think that the book is notable, start an article about this book. But check the criteria for inclusion first. Wikid as&#169; 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply In his text, Holy war: violence and the Bhagavad Gita, Satyaraja Dasa states that Swami B.V. Tripurari is, "an author, poet and spiritual teacher. As a prominent master in the Gaudiya Vaishnava lineage, he is one of the leading practioners of Bhakti-yoga in the West." . Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep He received enough coverage in RS to be on Wiki. Besides sources mentioned above by Ism schism, there's also a review of his work in Yoga Journal and coverage in academic publications  .--Gaura79 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The AfD nomination is unnecessary and not in line with Wikipedia's policies. The specific statements in question should be noted as described in the Editing Policy. This is clearly stated in the Deletion Policy. Wikidas has a history of "gaming the system" as evidenced by this discussion. Fredeaker (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Arvind Sharma, Satyaraja Dasa, and Yoga Journal are reliable sources that attribute notability to this individual. These, along with other sources in the article, and authors who cite many of this author's books in their work (,, , , ,  , , , and  are a few...), together have shown that this individual is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2010 (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.