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, consensus is that the article does meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nisargadatta Maharaj[edit]

No sufficient citations, mainly self published works, no verification of notablity. Wikidās ॐ 19:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This university press book calls him "a highly regarded modern exponent of Advaitic realization." 445 googlebook hits without him as author. This book by bestselling author Wayne Dyer refers to him, so he is apparently quite well-known. This bestseller puts him on their list of "20 Famous Gurus and their Former Jobs" with a short bio.John Z (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a three page bio in italian.John Z (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As is obvious, I hardly looked at the article and its many refs before I did my own search.John Z (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non notable with only passing mentions as references. No notable activities sourced. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Highly notable. Why are Ism schism (talk · contribs) and Wikidas (talk · contribs) nominating so many articles for deletion? — goethean ॐ 01:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons are lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. Also, if you look over my edit history you will find that I nominate article for deletion that are not notable and have no reliable sources. This article is not singled out among the others, it simply meets the standard of a non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everyone is entitled to their own notion of notability. But it is better if at AfD, we use the notion, however we individually interpret it, explained in deletion policy and notability criteria. I also wonder whether people are clear on RS's too. Whether an article currently contains RS's or not is irrelevant to AfD. The question is whether they can be found. This article is one with so many - hundreds of google book hits - that the problem is picking out the most extensive and most academic ones, for use with the many probable RS's in the article already. It is usually thought to be good practice to do some googling on a topic before recommending it for AfD.John Z (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep : Dont see anything wrong with the article, has pretty good refs; - vineeth (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have to echo what John Z says here, the article clearly establishes notability through third party sources. The article could use more citations, though this isn't a reason for deletion. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Article could use cleanup, but per WP:BIO there seems to be sufficient reliable 3rd party sources available.TheRingess (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google book hits (RS) support notability. Needs cleanup though.Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep That Wikipedia indulges this time wasting nonsense suggests some of the Wikipedia administrative principles should be put up for deletion. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable, though the article is awful - full of peacock and weasel prose ('most famous', 'worldwide recognition', 'reached self-awareness'), and is way longer than it needs to be. ~ priyanath talk 02:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This gentleman is just one of the thousands of baba's swami's etc. in India. Just because there was a book published citing him or a famous person referenced him/her doesn't mean that he is notable. To allow this now, is to potentially open a floodgate to many many such articles. And not to mention encourage narcissistic behaviour from the living. Also, that such an article is properly referenced is no reason to keep it (Please note most references are to one website, which is about itself). I can also imagine people indulging in linkexchanges (article exchanges?) on multiple sites to increase so-called notability. Thus said, I must hand it to him, that he has had influence beyond his lifetime, and that someone is taking the troule to maintain a website would count for something. Lastly, this note is being repeated verbatim elsewhere on a similar AfD ChiragPatnaik (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there are thousands of notable traditional spiritual leaders in India, and there are facts that can be verified as is the case here, and evidence for multiple publications, we should include every one of them all. NOT PAPER means that a flood of articles will not pose any difficulties. There are indeed thousands of notable spiritual leaders of many different sorts. Or shall we only include articles in those subjects where only a few people are notable? It is of course going to be more difficult for the ones without English language publications or translations--fortunately these are present for his case. I accept Chirag Patnaik's judgment that he has had influence behind his lifetime. DGG (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This page clearly shows notability and Nisargadatta Maharaj is referenced in dozens of independently published books as being one of the most influential spiritual teachers of the 20th Century. His name is practically a household word among students of Advaita Vedanta in the West. This deletion tag should have been removed days ago. The point about the administrative process being improved is certainly apt in light of the spree of deletion nominations that a small number of editors have recently been on. Ram.samartha (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (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.