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. It seems like there is no consensus here about whether the sources are adequate to justify notability and there is little discussion on whether the award.does establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Kalyandev[edit]

Swami Kalyandev (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)

This article is, to put it mildly, a complete disaster. Once one works through the ridiculous age claim and the effusive gushing about this guy, there's not anything of any substance left here. The awards are notable enough for a minibio on Longevity claims, if they can be proven; right now there's absolutely no sourcing to back them up. Even with those, per WP:PAGEDECIDE there's not nearly enough substance for an entire standalone article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- extremely dubious article about a man who supposedly lived to the age of 128. The sources are sketchy and the article is written in an inappropriately hagiographic style. Reyk _YO! 07:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:ANYBIO due to his receipt of the Padma Bhushan, "a well-known and significant award or honor." This is verified in this source, which is already included in the article. schetm (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If he won said award, that can be explained in one sentence. And from looking through said award, far from everyone who won it has a stand-alone article. A minibio would be just fine to explain that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Dude, where are you getting your facts? A quick survey shows that the overwhelming majority of the award winners do have stand alone articles! WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a great argument, but my point still stands. At any rate, there's more than enough in the article to justify a stand-alone page anyway, and the thrust of the article, unlike those of other longevity claimants, isn't about his age claim (which is only discussed in one sentence, BTW) - it's about the well-sourced stuff that he did. schetm (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Except it's not "well-sourced", it's effusive gushing. One of the "citations" is expressly labeled a press release, and the others are somewhat but only mildly better. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  In what world is two national newspapers (sources 4 and 6 in the reflist) and a journal article (source 3) only "mildly better" than a press release? They're reliable sources that demonstrate notability. And, as another reminder, despite the NPOV and hagiography concerns, AfD is not cleanup. schetm (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a couple one-off articles and a dubious journal. That's how. And WP:TNT, while an essay, is absolutely something worth considering when there's very little to no content worth keeping. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles (including this one I just found) unquestionably demonstrate SIGCOV. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how the journal is dubious. The fact is that Swami Kalyandev was notable for doing all the stuff he did, so I would question how much really should be removed anyway. schetm (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's the same thing as often seen in these longevity AFDs. People decide by themselves that an article is "bullshit" and then every supporting reference is also labelled "bullshit" because they include the longevity claim. They then move to delete the article based on the lack of supporting references that aren't "bullshit". It's circular reasoning - the claim is BS, the sources are BS because they support coverage of the claim, so the article should be deleted. Yes, we get it - the claim is likely not true - but this isn't for us to decide, it's what the references reliably show that matters. FOARP (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  In brief, this guy's age claim isn't considered biologically possible. Knowing that, Wikipedia should not base biographies on sources that overtly fly in the face of biology. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says verifiable information has to be forced into articles even if it's obviously wrong, which is why, years ago, a huge RfC removed the "verifiability, not truth" wording at WP:V. We can obviously disagree on the notability of the subject, but it's not circular; in this case, anyway, this is based on what RS on biology currently say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think you get it. This biography isn't based on the age claim. It's based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The age claim is only mentioned in one sentence, and is met with skepticism there. At any rate, this guy is notable apart from the age claim. The sources here aren't gushing over his 127th birthday and his diet at 126. They're presenting news about awards received or are giving a robust biography, which is what separates Swami Kalyandev from other longevity claimants or supercentenarians. This is also why any minibio on Longevity claims would be misplaced. It's worth noting that there are no minibios on Longevity claims, and it would just be messy to create a lone one. schetm (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in question, in my view, are hagiographic, despite the veneer of reliability. The age situation is just one part of many where the sources are being uncritical of extraordinary claims; this is where a normal reference work, in my mind, would filter out this sort of noise. If this is closed against my suggestion I certainly won't go rogue or anything. And finally, the longevity myths article rather neatly handles minibios, so there's no obvious reason the longevity claims article shouldn't be able to do so as well. (Also, to avoid making it sound personal, I have appreciated your feedback on other issues in this topic area and certainly don't want to drive you away). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sigh, I thought we were done with these AFDs on super-centenarians? The references in the article show WP:SIGCOV, notability is easy to show based on his rewards. The article is hagiography but AFD is not clean-up. That his claim of living to 128 probably isn't true doesn't matter. FOARP (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of us are trying to make Wikipedia contain less bullshit. I'm sorry you don't like that. Reyk _YO! 08:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And some of us understand that, since there are a lot of things that are BS but well-referenced and possibly notable for reasons other than the things that make them BS, you shouldn't just go on a deletion spree. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:45, 17 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.