Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Sjoman (2nd nomination)

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. Will restore article's prior history for licensing purposes, pursuant to the discussion here. —Darkwind (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Sjoman

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

Fails GNG for notability. Previously deleted per AfD. All reference are either blogs, one companies reviews of her books, or blogs. Still suffers from the same problems as last listing. Caffeyw (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1 book with 39 cites. Not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Obviously, since it was I who created the article. I wasn't involved in the earlier deletion discussion but was asked to look at the article. It seemed to me that the well-researched contrarian view of Yoga history as presented in the Mysore book was sufficiently notable to justify an article. There were many more available sources discussing that but I stuck with Yoga Journal as the prime one as it is the major printed journal of yoga, and the article goes into some detail, helpful to a reader. I backed it up with a book from Princeton University Press to confirm notability. The bibliography does list a number of further publications, but since my sense is that it is the Mysore book that is notable, I would support a move to an article about the book rather than the author. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but WP:PROF seems far out of reach. Notability via WP:GNG is more likely, but I didn't see anything good enough in Google news archive. Google books has more hits, but still nothing that covers him in detail, and all about his one book, so WP:BIO1E would seem to apply: the results of his research might be worth including somewhere in Wikipedia but he doesn't inherit their notability. This article is somewhat different from the version that was deleted in April (the "Yoga Tradition of the Mysore Palace" section is new). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep (see note below). Added a review from Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.[1] This source[2] (pg. 99) gives some context why the book/author is important, there is a debate within hatha yoga concerning the origins of positions in contemporary yoga. Norman Sjoman is a historical revisionist ("contrarian view"). Regardless if the revisionism has been accepted or not, more important for Wikipedia purposes is if anyone pays attention to the revisionism. Perhaps within the narrow confines of hatha yoga scholarship, it is known, but not seeing much. It's telling that it took two AfD's before anyone was able to figure out why this book/person might be considered important and judge based on something other than blind notability rules. It might be possible for it to pass on WP:AUTHOR #3 if we get 4 or 5 reviews in respectable sources, currently only have two (the two Yoga journal same-issue counts as one + Asiatic Society). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wwwhatsup has added additional reliable sources that show this theory has received attention in history books published by Princeton, Oxford etc.. the amount of coverage is not ideal but I think it's enough to show this is not fringe theory but one that has received legitimate attention by (some) peers. Change vote to Keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ previous article was deleted and this one is based on that one but without attributions from original article, this is against policy yes? MarioNovi (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If this one ends up being kept, we can undelete the old revisions from the original article to make the attributions clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is this done? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Normally the person who closes an AfD has the administrator privileges needed to do this. If it doesn't happen, contact me on my talk page and I can. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you, vote is changed. MarioNovi (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't dispute Green Cardamom's reasoning above, and yes MarioNovi some unsourced personal details derived from the earlier article, helpful in understanding how the book came to be written. Green Cardamom exaggerates that it was 2 AfD's - I came to the topic fresh after the first AfD and, even as a person not from the hatha yoga community, it was evident that Sjoman's notability drew from his yoga research. I thus emphasized it. According to the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society review the Singleton book is based on it. So we have Princeton University Press and Oxford University Press drawing from Sjoman's research. As such I believe the research is of general notability and a brief description of its content worthy of Wikipedia - whether under it's author's name or otherwise. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, you did pick up on why he is notable. I think it's a stretch to say it deserves a standalone article but certainly should find a place somewhere on Wikipedia. I was surprised not to find it mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, but maybe didn't look in the right place, or maybe it's so controversial that previous editors deleted it, or so obscure no one has added it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the existing refs slightly and added the Singleton. Also added mentions in both the Sritattvanidhi and Krishnamacharya articles. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination states All reference are either blogs, one companies reviews of her books, or blogs. Still suffers from the same problems as last listing. Not true, a touch incoherent, and misidentifies the subject as female. Perhaps Caffeyw would care to comment further? Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think User:Green Cardaman has it right: notability is in a specialized field, but WP includes specialized fields. Only abridged encyclopedias are limited to things well-known to the general public. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I updated the refs etc on Sep 3, since when all comments have been keeps, however grudging, while none of the original deletes have pitched in further. I'd like to hear from them. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry so far down the list I forgot about. It looks like the references are one word mentions where something she said was mentioned. She's also part author of a book, and a paper. I just don't see the wide spread notability or exception by being a professor. Caffeyw (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She? Are we talking about the same person? Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sep.3 updates to the refs are insufficient to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mostly per Green Cardamom's additions and arguments above. There's certainly more to substantiate notability than was presented during the last deletion discussion (during which I opined for deletion). I said during the first discussion that I was happy to consider sources and several editors have now gone to effort to provide some. I initially had a few process concerns which I raised with the re-creator, but the fact that this discussion has been now been re-listed twice suggests the community has had plenty of chances to contribute and be heard on any of those concerns. Stalwart111 10:06, 17 September 2013 (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.