Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogaswami

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. — Scientizzle 19:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yogaswami

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a very notable swami. Promoted by the direct disciple who founded Hinduism Today. No independent sources that verify the notion of notability. Wikid ^as© 06:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable religious type. Article is promotional, as are sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books seems to have quite a few (51) hits, including one that calls him "one of Sri Lanka's most renowned spiritual masters". (A few of these books seem to be by the same person — his disciple — but the majority are not.) Shreevatsa (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clean up is no cause for deletion, the article is an absolute mess no doubt. If I find tinme, i will fix it meanwhile tag it and keep it per RS sources. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable - self promotional sources from 'the search' do not qualify for the article to remain. All sources are seen as not only promotional but also promoted by a follower. None of the editors added the reliable source to support notability, thus delete. I do not think that there will be more sources for him in the near future. (User) Mb (Talk) 14:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We do not delete articles on grounds of notability based on what is in the article itself, but on what we argue here. I did not edit the article because I'm not interested in it, but I showed above that there were independent reliable sources establishing notability (which are not in the article). Shreevatsa (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC) No, they are not independent.[reply]

Comment. A few independent reliable sources with varying degrees of coverage of the subject: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source no1 concludes: "With deep gratitude and reverence we pay homage to Siva Yogaswami and cherish his memory and immortal words" -- not independent, next one is much the same, other links are not about him - mentioned in passing in relation to some other notable dude, or a dead link and the last is again not about him - it is about the same notable dude (the successor) --(User) Mb (Talk) 19:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that followers of Yogaswami have control over the editorial policy of the Daily News? That newspaper made the editorial decision to publish articles about the subject, which would appear to go some way towards establishing notability, especially when taken alongside briefer mentions in The Sunday Times, The Washington Post (which says that the movement started by Yogaswami grew to have 2.5 million followers) and in a book published by the Oxford University Press. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to establish notability. I've also found this one.--Gaura79 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I saw that one when I was looking for sources but dismissed it because I didn't recognise the publisher. It seems, however, that Ten Speed Press is a reputable outfit. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I didn't !vote earlier because I hadn't yet taken the time to examine the sources carefully, but I'm now convinced that the sources linked in this discussion are enough to meet notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google Books results. Heather (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.