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. This was moved from Ganapati Muni to this title a day before this AfD was created. I'll open a discussion on the article's talk page on what the correct title should be. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyala somayajulu ganapathi sastry[edit]

Ayyala somayajulu ganapathi sastry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The subject of this article does not seem to meet GNG, in that I cannot seem to find significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. I actually PRODed this, and the PROD tag remained for >7 days; but it was removed before an admin acted on this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Comment This is going to be tough due to the various names/titles the subject is known by, but searching Google Books for Kavyakantha throws up a lot aof references about him being a noted scholar/poet and disciples of Ramana Maharshi, for example see [1], [2], [3]. Now none of these are high-quality academic references, and some tend towards devotional/hagiographic literature but they suggest to me that it would be worth retaining the article and spending the effort to find better sources (or, digging up the currently cited sources in the article, which unfortunately have incomplete bibliographic information). Also the article surely needs to be renamed, although I am not currently sure of what the title should be and that is best discussed on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Abecedare, the concerns over hagiographical literature is precisely why I nominated this. As you said, there are plenty of mentions of this guy; but when I tried to track down the substantial ones, I was unable to find a single instance of significant indepedent reliable coverage. If you could find such, I would gladly withdraw the nom. I glanced at the ones you found; one of them is effectively an SPS, and the others seem highly dodgy as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with your assessment of the particular sources I listed; they indicate that the subject may be notable, but don't establish it by themselves. I'll see if I can find any actual reliable sources amongst all the chaff. Abecedare (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my !vote to "comment" whilst I decide which side of the line I finally fall on. Also asked User:Shreevatsa for their opinion, given their knowledge and interest in Sanskrit literature and poetry. Abecedare (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- @Abecedare: The article is already renamed but I've doubt about the spelling error in the title. According to this ref it should be Ganapati Muni. And of course the subject is notable but as per Wikipedia's policy it should be cited with reliable references such as ref. from the Hindi, another ref from The Hindu. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cutest Penguin, the sources you provided are reliable and secondary, but they are one-sentence mentions. I said this once above, but you need substantial coverage for the subject to be notable. If you can find such coverage, I would gladly withdraw the nomination. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Note: I've just gave the example not cited the article. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cutest Penguin; yes, you did not. I would actually not have a problem even if you did cite them; but they are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Since you voted keep, I was hoping you could find sources that do show that the subject is notable; I nominated this, because I didn't find any. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: For Indian articles always consider INDAFD. Of course I will do it but later in free time. Thanks for the feedback. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay; and having spent a fair amount of my time here editing Indian pages, I know some of the issues involved. I also know that there is a fairly strong tendency for religious sects in that region to produce hagiographical literature. Ergo, we must be careful in both directions; dodgy sources are frequently used to support articles that for non-notable subjects. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I looked around a bit on worldcat etc for "Kavyakantha", and the subject of this article seems sufficiently notable even as an author — going by the number of published works that are held in libraries, have been translated in the recent past, etc. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2015 (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.