Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totapuri

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 delete. Well, it seems like only the delete camp has gone into a detailed source analysis as to why the sources are inadequate - the keep camp isn't really making a case as to why any of the sources would meet WP:SIGCOV. If as stated it's correct that it's not even clear whether this saint is one person or many, that would be another argument against the sources being adequate. I am not seeing a notability guideline for saints, so GNG has to apply, and by the discussion this topic seems to fail GNG Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totapuri[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Short article without much in the way of sourcing, and the few sources here now don't demonstrate much in the way of notability. Also, per the talkpage this seems to be fusing together the biographies of 3 entirely separate people. At the very least this is a candidate for TNT, it's pretty much irretrievable in its existing form, but even with what sources are here there's no significant case for this guy being especially notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well, this is a short article but a properly cited one, with four independent reliable sources, which alone is normally enough for an immediate 'Keep'. Totapuri appears to be a venerated Hindu saint, and additional facts about his life are available. I'd also remind editors that Notability depends on the existence of sources in the world, not on how long or short an article is, and not on how many of the available sources may have been collected into an article. If we find his 300-year claimed lifetime difficult, then let us recall that Methuselah's reputed lifetime of 969 years in a very different tradition has been no obstruction to GA status; religious myths (if that is what we have here) are suitable topics for Wikipedia articles. At the very least, the material here is useful and reliable, and would make a good section ('Guru') in Ramakrishna, should consensus be to merge; but it seems to me that keeping is the clear option to recommend here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a general note, being a Hindu saint is nowhere near the same claim of notability as in religions such as the Abrahamic traditions; despite the seeming similarity the two are quite different from each other. Also, as noted on the talkpage, it's not even clear all the few sources here are even talking about the same person. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple g-hits, and already sufficiently sourced to pass the GNG. schetm (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2 of the 4 sources (which isn't that much to start with) are passing mentions, and the external links are not at all RS. And I'm not sure about the ghits, though there may also be a language barrier here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article are mainly brief mentions, which fails WP:GNG, and experienced editors believe they belong to different people at that. This article is a permastub of junk status about an amalgamation of un-notable figures, and it was also created by a discredited sockpuppet editor. It's arguably a WP:HOAX, and needs to be deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the other editors that we can't actually confirm if all the sources are talking about the same person. We shouldn't have biographies of people whose identities are dubious. Reyk _YO! 08:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article seems to have sufficient citations and notability, albeit requiring some improvements. --RaviC (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should be expanded. --Jinabi (talk) 8:36, April 29 2019 (UTC) — Jinabi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Jinabi has made few other contributions besides the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this text created by a confirmed sockpuppet (see here), about a non notable subject. The sources are very weak: The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna does not even mention the subject person, while in the article "The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta" the subject is name-dropped once, in passing, in a section about Ramakrishna. Same with the book Writers Philosophers and Religious Leaders. If after all the online and book searches this is the best we can come up with, I'm afraid the subject does not meet the verifiable notability requirements. -The Gnome (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article seems to have reliable citations and notability, but needs well improvements. -MA Javadi (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MA Javadi, RaviC, schetm and Chiswick Chap. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to thinking I missed something, but could any of the keep voters explain why the current sources prove notability? None of the comments so far seem to rebut the concerns The Gnome raised above, they're basically ITEXISTS and argument by assertion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:29, 1 May 2019 (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.