Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Nikhilanand

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 NO CONSENSUS. Both sides deserve a trout slap for making this much more interminable than it needed to be. If/when this comes back to AFD, state your case and move on, don't labor it. Getting the last word ≠ winning the discussion. It might also make it easier to take some of the proffered sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for individual discussion in advance rather than futilely headbutting "it's reliable/no it isn't" in the midst of an AFD again. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Nikhilanand[edit]

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

Not a notable person. There are no reliable sources that state that this person is notable, or for what reason. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nominator Wikid ^as© 07:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to be confused with Swami Nikhilananda, who is a notable person. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Nikhilanand and Nikhilananda are not different words. Either of these people's name can be spelled either way. The Swami Nikhilanand mentioned in this article is also spelled as Swami Nikhilananda in many places. Maybe there is confusion about the spelling of Indian languages. For example, the subject of this article is mentioned and pictured in Times of India with the caption Swami Nikhilananda [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines. If you want to delete it, I can only assume you have personal reasons. He's the spiritual leader of the largest Hindu temple and ashram outside India. He's mentioned as a prominent figure in several articles. He regularly speaks as the presiding religious leader over high profile Hindu events in USA. There's almost an entire article about him in a Hamilton College journal. He has his own radio show on Radio Masala, Houston - the only prime time radio show which deals with Hindu religion. He's not a rock star - he's just a notable Hindu religious leader.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.42.74 (talk)
- Reply Please provide reliable sources that state that the subject is notable. To say that "He's the spiritual leader of the largest Hindu temple and ashram outside India" needs to be cited by reliable sources, otherwise it is just original research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the opening of this discussion, there are still no reliable sources that state that the subject is notable, much less for what reason. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you please detail which of the many sources in the article you have read, and which you have not, so that the rest of us can evaluate your assertions. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Actually, all 21 refs are not reliable, as none are reliable sources that state that the subject is notable. Some don't even mention him at all. While there are references, these should not be mistaken for reliable sources that establish notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Have you read all 21 of those sources to determine that they are not reliable? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read all sources available. None of them are reliable sources that state that the subject is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read all the sources. The Desi Talk Cover Story (which is all about Swami Nikhilanand) doesn't even appear to be online, and which is exclusively about the subject. So, saying you have read all the sources is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Reply All the sources are reliable third party sources. They don't use the exact word "notable" but the content establishes his notability. He is the spiritual teacher at the largest Hindu temple complex in America (a few sources mentioned), he has a journal article where he is the main subject (sources given in article), he has presided over a number of conferences and high profile events of the Hindu community (sources given), his lecture series info are mentioned on dozens of Hindu temple websites (sources not given in article though they could be added), he has his own radio show on a major Indian American station (source not given in article, but it could be added eventually) - he is also held in high esteem in the American Hindu community, and invited as chief guest to national events (sources given in article). He also seems to be a patron of another Hindu American organization, "the Vedic Foundation".

Comment The article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines. If you want to delete it, I can only assume you have personal reasons. He is the spiritual teacher at one of the largest Hindu Temple complexes in the Western Hemisphere, and the largest in North America. He's mentioned as a prominent figure in several articles. He regularly speaks as the presiding religious leader over high profile Hindu events in USA. There's almost an entire article about him in a Hamilton College journal. He has his own radio show on Radio Masala, Houston - the only prime time radio show which deals with Hindu religion. He's not a rock star - he's just a notable Hindu religious leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Again, if you state that, "He is the spiritual teacher at one of the largest Hindu Temple complexes in the Western Hemisphere, and the largest in North America," this needs to be cited by reliable sources. So far there are none. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check Google News, Books, and Scholar - you will see that this person is not notable. However there is a person with a similar name Swami Nikhilananda, who is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Nikhilanand and Nikhilananda are not different words. Either of these people's name can be spelled either way. The Swami Nikhilanand mentioned in this article is also spelled as Swami Nikhilananda in many places. Maybe there is confusion about the spelling of Indian languages. For example, the subject of this article is mentioned and pictured in Times of India with the caption Swami Nikhilananda [2]. This wikipedia article cites several publications where he is mentioned as a prolific or prominent leader. The article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines. If you want to delete it, I can only assume you haven't read any of the sources, or have personal reasons to want it to not be on wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- please do not be deceived by the casual mention of the subject in what seems to be reliable sources, none of the sources are specifically about the subject, and mentioning someone in a photo caption does not make one notable either. Wikid^as© 07:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note He's mentioned in the body of the article as well as in the main picture - I just meant that his name was spelled both ways in the same article. Although the article mentions that the event had 100 vetted invitees, and "brought together prolific leaders, rabbis, monks, and activists from several influential synagogues, temples, and organizations in this city", Swami Nikhilanand is one of only two leaders that are actually named specifically. He is also one of the only leaders pictured in the main photo. But this is just one article on the subject - another being a journal article almost entirely about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note Not sure if there needs any more proof of notability, but he was interviewed in several popular TV and radio shows, including ITV Gold [3] and on Radio Salaam Namaste [4] but they are not mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply My rabbi also gives interviews to TV and radio shows. Most religious leaders do. He also attends conferences, some of which have led to his picture in a paper or two. However, this does not make him notable. It just proves that he exist as a religious leader. The subject at hand is not notable, as there are no reliable sources that state that he is notable, or for what. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply The article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines. If you want to delete it, I can only assume you have personal reasons. His main notability stems from the fact of his being the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America, and one of the biggest in the western hemisphere, and is demonstrated by many additional sources. The article already has sources to back that up. It would be the equivalent of your rabbi being the rabbi of the largest Synagogue in America, and one of the largest outside Israel; having a journal article written about him; being the presiding leader at a number of significant Jewish events; having his own radio show; being the chief guest at a national Jewish celebration; being a well know speaker who is constantly invited to speak at Synagogues throughout America etc etc. If your Rabbi has all these things, please let us know who he is, and we can write him an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 April 2011
        Comment You keep repeating the phrase "The article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines." Yet, the article does not pass any notability guidelines at all. The article fails Wikipedia Notability. What guidelines are you talking about - specifically? I see none that would allow for a keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply He is NOT "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America." You have provided no reliable sources to confirm this, and as such it is Original Research. You have had a week to provide reliable sources that state that the subject is notable, and you have not done this. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply How does it not meet wikipedia guidelines? You flagged it, and as yet have not given any reasonable cause to believe it doesn't pass the notability test. Look at the first line: "Swami Nikhilanand is a prominent (Kulkarni, 2010),[1] Canadian born Hindu Spiritual Leader (Dutt, 2010).[2] He is the spiritual teacher at JKP Barsana Dham, [3][4][5] one of the largest Hindu Temple complexes in the Western Hemisphere,[6] and the largest in North America. [7][8][9]". Everything is backed up by reliable 3rd party sources. The article has 25 sources, only 2 of which don't mention his name (you previously said many of the sources don't even mention his name which is untrue). A few of the sources mention him in passing as a prominent person, but there are enough sources where he is the main topic. You are implying that a wikipedia guideline is that there should be sources that say the exact phrase "he is a notable person" - not to mention there is one that says he is "prominent" which means the same thing - however wikipedia guideline basically says that notability should be shown, which it more than is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Just because it is referenced does not mean it is backed by reliable sources. Your references DO NOT back up your claims to notability. They are rather misleading, and as you have even stated "2 of which don't mention his name." Also, his personal website pages you listed above - those are not a reliable source. Also, this claim to be "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America," is false and misleading at best - and there are NO reliable sources to back it up! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Other than saying that there are no reliable sources to back things up, you seem unable to back up your argument. His personal website is obviously not reliable, except that it hosts some material from independent 3rd party sources - TV and radio show. All the main points of the article are backed up by journal articles, and articles in major news sources in relation to many different events (India Tribune, Indo American News, The South Asian Times, Jewish Herald-Voice, The Times of India) and major Indian American magazines (Desi Talk, Salaam Namaste Magazine, Lokavani, ICC NEWSLETTER) and a Hamilton College journal, and major Hindu American websites not related to his own organization (VHP America, Hindus of Houston etc) and university websites. Its not a valid argument, but from looking at other articles for deletion pages that have been kept, I haven't come across anyone else who has had so much coverage and demonstration of notability. I think you are basing his lack of notability on the fact that you haven't heard of him, not based on the article content. To say he's not notable, or that notability hasn't been demonstrated here, or that he's not the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America, is just being dishonest - I'm not sure if whether you are referring to the same article that I am.
        Reply What reliable source says that he is "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America?" Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply The article and it sources show that he is the spiritual teacher of Barsana Dham, which is one of the largest Hindu Temple complexes in North America. There is no need for a source that says the exact phrase: "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America?" Where does wikipedia say that you need a source for that exact phrase. Its not possible to always find exact phrases like that - e.g. "Swami Nikhilanand is a notable person". The requirement is that it is demonstrated in reliable, 3rd party sources that it is true. Having a source for that exact phrase is not a requirement, and not having it doesn't seem like a reason to delete the whole article. And you haven't read all the sources, the Desi Talk Cover Story (which is all about Swami Nikhilanand) doesn't even appear to be online, and which is exclusively about the subject. So, saying you have read all the sources is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Please answer my question - What reliable source says that he is "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America," which I assume you mean Barsana Dham - which is not "the largest Hindu center in America," nor is this individual its leader. Your info is not sourced and very misleading - and wrong. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Here are some sources that demonstrate that he is the spiritual teacher at Barsana Dham [5], [6] and [7], [8] and [9] but there are many more. And here are some sources that say that Barsana Dham is the largest Hindu temple complex in North America or one of the largest in the western Hemisphere [10], [11] and [12]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply NONE of these sources state that he is the spiritual leader of Barsana Dham - NONE!!! Also, the other sources only mention the individual - if at all! These sources do not state how this individual is notable, and in no way show that he is the spiritual leader of Barsana Dham. This is quite a stretch - and misleading at best - as are some of these sources you listed! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply The leader of Barsana Dham is Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj but he lives in India. If you knew about the temple, you would know that it also has local leadership. You say that none of these sources state that he is the spiritual leader of Barsana Dham - what else is he? Is he the caretaker? It is reasonably obvious from the context that his association with Barsana Dham in the capacity of its spiritual leader. As I already said, the article establishes notability as per wikipedia guidelines - he is a prominent figure in the American Hindu community, spiritual teacher at the largest Hindu center in North America, has a presiding role over major events and functions of the American Hindu community etc. - the wikipedia article shows that. If you want to delete it, I can only assume you have personal reasons. As I already showed, you hadn't even looked at the sources before nominating this article for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply Many Indian sources use the word "pracharak of Barsana Dham" which is somewhat equivalent to a spiritual leader... e.g. [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply You continue to make statements without backing them up with reliable sources. The spiritual leader of Barsana Dham is Prakashanand Saraswati. If you state that your guy is, then please provide evidence that says otherwise - supported by reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply Prakashanand Saraswati is not the spiritual leader of Barsana Dham. He was the founder. The leader is Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj. The president is Diwakari Devi. Other than that, Swami Nikhilanand is the main local spiritual leader of the temple. I can't find sources which directly say this, but his role in the temple and in Hindu American society is more than demonstrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Please provide reliable sources to support your statements. Otherwise, they are just Original Research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Here: [14] - Barsana Dham's own newsletter describes Swami Nikhilanand as the spiritual teacher of Barsana Dham. It also says that his speeches are broadcast on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply This is very misleading, and does not say that he is the spiritual leader of Barsana Dham. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Whether he is the "spiritual teacher" or "spiritual leader" or pracharak doesn't matter - they amount to the same thing. He is a notable figure in the Hindu American community, as shown by the article, and the there would be a major loss in the body of knowledge if this article is completely deleted. He is also the spiritual teacher of the largest Hindu temple in North America (which you surely agree with). As I showed, you hadn't read the sources before nominating this article for deletion, obviously you wouldn't change your mind now. As for BLP, the article has neutral point of view, verifiable information and no original research. He's not notable for just one event - but the combination of many events and topics. He is referenced in many diverse publications, including a journal article about him. Thanks.
        Reply So, is he no longer "the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America?" Are you changing your position? What is going on here? And where are the reliable sources? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply You just said the same thing, but using different words. As his website says: "JKP, Barsana Dham sanyasi teacher Swami Nikhilanand is offering several ongoing programs in the New York City area." Using other diverse sources, I showed that Barsana Dham is the largest Hindu center/temple/complex in North America and one of the largest in the western Hemisphere. See following sources: [15], [16] and [17].
        
        1. The "Encyclopedia of American Immigration" calls it the "largest Hindu temple in North America".
        
        2. The "Insiders' Guide to Austin" calls it "one of the largest Hindu temples in the United States".
        
        3. Hindu University of America Newsletter calls it "one of the largest Hindu temples in the Western Hemisphere."
        
        The subject is referred to in numerous articles as a notable figure and as being some sort of leader (teacher, pracharak, different words) of Barsana Dham who presides at major Hindu American events. Thanks.
        Reply And he is not the leader of the community. There are no reliable sources that state this - so it is Original Research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply Not every source has to say everything about the article. The 3 references above don't mention any leader or teacher. And obviously every organization would have a leader. Wikipedia articles are built by piecing together numerous sources and that has been done here. You nominated the article without looking at the sources (e.g. one of them isn't even online although you maintained for the past week that you read all the sources). In your comment below, you said that one source just had a picture of him - you didn't even read past the picture to see what the rest of the article said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After more than a week of discussion, I feel that Wikidas' statement, "please do not be deceived by the casual mention of the subject in what seems to be reliable sources, none of the sources are specifically about the subject, and mentioning someone in a photo caption does not make one notable either," really sums up this discussion. We are dealing with a person who is not notable, and whose article has attributed non-existent titles to him - without reliable sources. In addition, as this is a BLP with unreliable sources making false claims, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article just has a picture of him?? As I said to wikidas, he is mentioned in a times of India article alongside other "prolific" leaders of major religious organizations. See [18] . That's what I mean - you nominated the article without looking at the sources. You didn't see past the picture - even after discussing it for a week - and don't seem to be interested in reading the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply As stated above - "Mentioning someone in a photo caption does not make one notable." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply We can agree on that, but he's mentioned in the article body too, not just the picture. Out of 100 prolific leaders from prominent religious organizations, he is one of the only people to be mentioned in the body of the article - more than once. See [19] . That's what I mean - you nominated the article without looking at the sources. You didn't see past the picture - even after discussing it for a week - and don't seem to be interested in reading the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply No - you are making misleading comments! He is mentioned in the article but is not the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America as you say he is... still without reliable sources. And, this minor reference within an article of which he is Not the subject, does not show notability by any Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply You are just reading the first paragraph. There are two pages to the article. You still can't see past the picture... [20] We are unnecessarily arguing on the semantics of one article at at a time - the wikipedia article should be evaluated based on the whole body of sources, not just individual ones at a time. Wikipedia guidelines state that notability can be established through many independent, reliable sources. You say that he is not notable - but what else would you say considering the fact that you nominated the article for deletion before looking at the sources? At this stage, I am going to leave it to the judgment of whoever judges these kinds of things.
        Reply Your response is quite odd. I have read the sources. None say that the subject is notable, or how, or even possibly why. I do not disagree with you that this person exist. He probably does. Though, he is not notable - for anything. You have stated that he is the leader of Barsana Dham - this is not true, and your sources have shown this. Your comments are very misleading, and tend to promote this individual far beyond his position as an ordinary religious personality. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Everything in the article is written from NPOV. There are no outlandish claims, nothing strange - he is an ordinary religious teacher, who just happens to be notable in the Hindu American community. The article describes him as a spiritual teacher of Barsana Dham, which is no doubt one of the largest Hindu complexes in America. The newsletter of Barsana Dham describes him as "Barsana Dham sanyasi teacher". You keep looking for exact phrases, but I don't think that's what wikipedia guidelines state. It says teacher, but in the article is shows that he is a spiritual teacher. What more can be said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply So, we've gone from the spiritual leader at the largest Hindu center in America to only a teacher. That is a big difference. How many teachers are there? He clearly is not a notable individual. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply I don't know how many teachers there are in the world. There are plenty of sources that describe him as prolific, prominent or otherwise. He one of only 2 or 3 teachers of the largest Hindu temple in the western Hemisphere. He's obviously not a high school teacher. All the references mention him in the capacity of being a spiritual teacher or leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply He might be a nice person, but he is not notable. He has done nothing notable. He is not written about in (reliably sourced) religious studies articles as a teacher, nor in any other scholarly articles. No reliably sourced books mention him. This is just a person who exist, but is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply The article has enough sources to mention him as being notable, as well as being a spiritual leader [21][22], spiritual teacher [23], pracharak of Barsana Dham [24] - just some of many sources cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Per Wikipedia standards - none of these are reliable sources. This individual is still not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply They are noteworthy publications which, along with the combination of all the other sources, backup everything that's said in the article and show that the subject is notable. You said they were not reliable sources before even looking at them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Please show me. Aside for the articles you provided that only mention (at best) this individual, there is no reason to believe that this individual is notable. Your attempts to say that he is the leader of Barsana Dham has failed, as it is not true. There is not much left to say about this individual, aside from that he is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply There are 28 sources - many mention the subject in a significant way. I think that if I went through each one, you would keep asking for more sources. The threshold of eligibility to be included in wikipedia has at least been passed in my opinion - to evaluate that, you would have to actually read it. The fact is that I was correct when I first said that you must have a personal reason for this article not to be here. And I have already established that you hadn't read any of the sources before you nominated this article for deletion. Thanks.
        Reply 28 sources - its not about numbers but reliability - sources that establish notability that are verifiable. You have stated that, "The threshold of eligibility to be included in Wikipedia has at least been passed in my opinion," but you have not stated how, nor have you provided reliable sources to back up your claims. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I actually never seen such a long discussion with an Ip on AfD discussions in years. But in any case, instead of that what is required is to advertise this discussion on Hindu related WP boards and see if an additional opinion is found. For some reason ip did not convince me that he knows the policy of WP on deletion, but there are sources, poor and in passing, but they exist. So there is a need to build a consensus. Wikid^as© 06:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Ya I'm familiar with the entire deletion policy of wikipedia and have no dount that this page doesn't merit deletion. There is room for improvement in the article obviously, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted altogether. Advertise the page if you want, but people should realize its not a majority vote where you can invite your friends to join. As wikipedia says: "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." I have proved that the article at least meets the threshold of every wikipedia guideline. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Just added another reference of his writings having been published ([25]) in the April/May/June 2011 edition of Hinduism Today Magazine. There are many more sources if people are willing to look. I would call this a safe keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Again, that is not a reliable source. The author wrote it himself, and it in no way shows notability. Please provide reliable sources to demonstrate notabilty; so far there are none. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Yes, it was written by the subject of this article - and published in the foremost global journal on Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.86 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2011 (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.