Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri[edit]

Good faith search in web, Google News, and Factiva come up with no evidence that the subject of this advertisement meets the notability guidelines. Bongo matic 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--in light of new evidence added to the article (though I wish it had been added via templates and in-line citations...well, one can always hope) I'm changing my vote here. Some editor did some really serious searching--perhaps having run out of bacon topics. PS, I am not voting keep because of Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri's good character; I am of the devil's party myself.Delete--I can find one brief thingy in the New York Post and that's it. Not notable, and it does read like an ad. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the very long name indicate some kind of inherent notability? If Schmidty comes by he's going to save this article, I just know it! I'm reserving judgement until we see if anyone can come up with more substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think he may actually be somewhat notable, at least in India. The name "Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda" seems to be frequently used; I suspect the other parts are honorifics. Looie496 (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About coverage. There is substantial coverage available in the links provided. There are pictures of the Swamiji with several European presidents, Dalai Lama and Mayors of 6 capitol cities and ample descriptions of the events organized by him. Swamijis area of activity is mostly Central Europe. Most news paper articles are not in english. For some which are, there are copyright issues, if the articles are not published by the magazines on the internet by themselves. The evidence should be analyzed with greater detail, especially the reports about World peace summits. The text is not from news agencies, but pictures are still pictures (!). It has been attempted to add similar article in the past, but they were not fixed on time to match the wikipedia policy. This time I will work with you until we can produce something that you will feel satisfied with. In reply to the comments raised, I have made the following change:

- partially reworded the text to make it more in the encyclopedic style

- added links to publications in Czech Republic

There have been multiple articles published in Austrialia, Austria, Germany, Slovenia, Slovakia and Croatia about Swamijis activities in the last 30 years (every year). He appeared on state television in nearly all of these countries in prime time news. I am still looking and waiting to get more coverage about this. In this part of the world, he is very well known. Please provide some time and more specific comments, so that I can fix what needs to be fixed.

About the titles: Vishwaguru means the Guru of the Universe and is the highest title given in Hinduism to a monk. Mahandaleshwar is in the same rank as in Catholic "cardinal". Paramhans means the highest Swan, or the leader of a monastery branch. Puri is the name of the branch. In Hinduism you have multiple branches, Puri, Giri etc.. as defined by Adi Guru Shankaracharya. Swami means Hindu monk. About the claim that this article is advertisement: All articles about people which have not died yet is advertisement. I would kindly ask to remove this flag. The wording in the article however should not be like advertisement. I agree with that. Thanks Guys!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmapuri (talk • contribs) 08:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reproduce an article here using the {{quotation}} template. Ottre 13:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I believe the article should be retitled with the subject's name. We don't title articles with the inclusion of honorifics whether they are Dr., President, or Guru of the Universe. Even Dr. Ruth who is best known by her name including the title, is referred to by her full name per standards. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is full of puffery and basically reads like an ad for someone of questionable notability at best, and doesn't even really address what, if anything, he's actually done. I think people are just being dazzled by the long name here. In any case, delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was also considering how to change the title in to something shorter, but did not find a way. I disagree though with plain dismissal of facts, especially by people whi are really not in to yoga in similar things and not interested in the subject. Has anyone even checked the list of links provided to establish notability? I am getting a feeling of being ignored here. Atmapuri (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: well, so do I, if I may. The article still reads like an ad, and there are no more reliable sources added. The article is now loaded with "press links"--that is, links to blogs, to PDFs containing newsletters by organizations, to the occasional television appearance. Seriously: the Peace Federation? How is that a reliable source? The article needs references to reliable and independent sources giving in-depth discussion of the topic: the best source in the article is the NY Post article, which features the subject as a "dear Abby" of sorts, without providing evaluation of discussion at all. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo matic has given balloons to Atmapuri and Drmies! Balloons are meant to uplift the morale of people who are feeling ignored, and has hopefully made your day a little better. Spread good will by giving someone else who is a bit grumpy a balloon!

Spread the good feeling by adding {{subst:Balloons}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Keep I'm convinced of notability based largely on the New York Post article. This article should be retitled as Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, and it needs some serious editing -- it needs references for the statements of fact, and the honorifics such as "His Holiness" should be removed, since we don't do that in Wikipedia. (Posted by Looie496)
Comment Interesting how many of these 'spiritual' people end up in Europe or the USA. "In recognition of his humanitarian and spiritual merits Swamiji received many thanks, awards and honouring titles from all over the world." Sounds like puff. I'll be looking into those links tomorrow. They don't look too promising so far. Being photographed with a political figure isn't notable to me, neither is visiting a place. I'll report back when less tired. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda is a great spiritual teacher. If you want it to keep it or not it is your decision. GyanPrakas —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The decision of whether to keep or delete the article is not a judgement on the greatness of the subject, but a determination that is based on our guidelines for notability. These require that article subjects demonstrate they are notable and have been substantially covered in reliable independent sources such as newspapers, magazines, and books. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The request for notability is not disputed. What is considered a notable reference is. It is true that not all (press) links added have a notability weight, but some do. These press links are there only to establish notability and would otherwise (except for World Peace Summits) not appear there. About looking as an add and sounding as a puff: There is not much text in the article and everybody is most welcome to edit the copy to make it more encyclopedic. And if you think about it. The Wiki page about Dalai Lama is all about advertisement for Buddhism in that sense. Nevertheless, the guy simply is there and is a large part of our lives. Specifically on notability: I honestly believe that Wiki administrators have not really looked in to the references provided with great enough depth. Additional problem here is the cultural gap, because unlike Vivekanda and Yogananda, the activties of this Swami are not concentrated on USA and consequently there is much less material which would be in english and english wise certifiable reference. Here is the short summary of things for which I believe establish a definite case of notability. Check the list of people attending the World Peace Summits every year. This is not a one time event and one picture. There is a continuous stream of support from a wide spectrum of international organization, Universities and government officials. Do not dismiss this claims lightly. It is true that this is not a book or a magazine, but nobody can put on-line such vast amount of material without being sanctioned by someone, if that would not be true. When it comes to direct "references" from books and magazines: Ok, so New York Post is no London Times or National Geographic, but that is one definite reference in USA. LA Times is another new reference. I also found Fox TV recordings of his interviews. The videos provided from the TV stations in Slovenia are from number 1 TV channel. The papers like www.vecer.si should count as the second reference. This is the nations second largest news paper in Slovenia. The magazins (7 dni, Novi tednik, Primorske novice....) are the ones in the top in Slovenia. If nothing else, adding this page in Slovenian language would have exactly 0 problems for notability. Same is true for Croatia: www.vjesnik.com and www.slobodnadalmacija.hr are the biggest papers in the country.

Swamiji is a yoga teacher (guru) and if you would check his site, you would find that are 25 countries listed with about 10 centers per country in average. There are up to 1000 people that go through each center every year. You do the math. We are talking several hundred thousands practitioners per year (!!). If that is not notable, I dont know what it is. It feels natural and normal, that at least "what is what" should be mentioned in Wiki. We can read in notability guidlines for Wiki: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."

And finally, I believe that we should support everybody who is making an effort to do something for the peace and for understanding in the world and has shown at least some positive results. Some people at least try!Atmapuri (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several citations to news media coverage have been added to the article. Please don't close this discussion until editors have a chance to review them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Several reliable sources in the article (NY Post, L.A Times, Nacional Magazine from Croatia, The Age of Australia) are enough to establish notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've looked into several of those links. Most of the ones I've looked at seem rather redolent of puffery or of the 'roller skating budgerigar' space filler. He's mentioned, he's interviewed in a very press handout way - but I haven't seen any great indication of importance in them. Reliable newspapers do need space fillers at times, and while unlike some they do not invent their fillers (usually) they do use stuff that would otherwise not make it into print. Peridon (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued: Just looked at the Austrian interview. Fairly brief and not an exactly unbiased (vegetarian) site. It contains the rather unscientific statement "Ein starkes Tier jagt das schwächere, das ist richtig. Tiere jagen Tiere. Doch der Mensch ist kein Tier, er sollte drüber stehen." (Basically: strong animals eat weaker animals. Man isn't an animal and so shouldn't.) The 'weaker' animals eat grass and similar. To follow his argument, as Man is not an animal we should not do likewise. Which leaves us with rocks.... In the ORF article, Swamiji gets one brief mention. I haven't looked into the Slovene language articles, but am puzzled by the description of him being "visible in the last part of the video about road accident". Isn't he usually visible? And what is a video about a road accident doing as a reference? Over to English language. Wisdom Magazine's article is by-lined "Kate O'Connor with Swamiji". Not an independent source, perhaps. Peridon (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People have different beliefs and who are we to judge? This is not a function of notability. Many of the links provided are there only to establish notability and would otherwise not be in the article. Finally, this is my first article I could use some help in producing something on the level of Wiki quality :) The impression I got thus far is that of extremly hard judgement of the topic, title and subject. Atmapuri (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, people have different beliefs. But I'm afraid we are to judge the notability. I must confess that the holier the titles get (or the more fervent the evangelist or whatever), the more I look for the Rolls-Royce. (Haven't found one here yet, though.) The links that are provided to establish notability aren't really succeeding for me - as detailed above. My knowledge of Croat and Slovene is not good enough to make a sound value judgement on the references in those languages. This is actually a borderline case in my view. Note that I'm Commenting not !voting. I'm knocking down the references I consider valueless as a possible stimulus to getting something better. Photos with politicians mean nothing. Politicians will pose with almost anybody (OK, perhaps not with a Manson or a Fritzl post conviction) as they seek to widen their appeal. Visiting a place isn't notable - unless you're the first to skateboard to the top of Everest. Signing a petition isn't notable. Being a 'religious leader' isn't of itself (to me, at least) notable. India and the USA are full of them. If a subject is of value, I want it to be presented as of value. Believe me, the amount of spam and puffery we get here is incredible. (And I'm a relative newcomer!) Peridon (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline perhaps, but apart from promotional content there isn't much substantial coverage to indicate notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (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.