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 delete. The core issue with this article is its lack of verification to back up its claims. In addition, notability is in question, and without any reliable sources to back up the claim to notability, the article does not meet criteria. If reliable sources are found to verify the article and confirm notability, the article can be recreated. Until such time, if an editor wants the article to work on, I will happily userfy it for him. Just poke me. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swarupananda[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Definitely needs sources and major cleanup.TheRingess (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not sure that notability could not be established, but obviously needs sources and a rewrite. Perhaps check notability with India/Hinduism project. --Jayen 466 22:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Article has no notability or reliable sources. If you disagree, please provide evidence for notability as I have found none. Until there is evidence to prove otherwise, this article is about a non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

Delete Article makes no claims to notability. Also, there are no reliable sources provided to confirm any claim to notability. If these exist, I am willing to change my vote. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until somebody can provide reliable sources for the subject because at the moment there are none. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He reached the level of sainthood in the Hindu religion. A person is noteworthy simply by reaching that internationally recognized level of spirituality in their religion. Dream Focus (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What reliable sources verify this claim to be internationally recongnized? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is impossible to say anything, as there are no reliable sources to the claims. Could be anyone under any name. Wikidās ॐ 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. The wikipedia has a list of all the saints for each religion. His name is on it. Googling about, I found many sources mention him. I also found his book translated. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=nuHJ88d2FnwC&dq=Swarupananda&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=_lEA6nhDV7&sig=vIxNyaW6MmGfUzhyxKPnjxKZLC0&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPP1,M1 How many here actually doubt the guy existed and was given sainthood? Dream Focus (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone doubts his existence. It's just that the article is in very poor shape. To meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability on biographical articles (see WP:BIO) we need multiple secondary reliable sources that discuss the subject. Notice that simply publishing a book does not confer notability in the sense the community defines it nor does a claim of sainthood with no backing sources. If you feel inclined, you might edit the article to include references from reliable sources, thus meeting the guidelines included in the link on notability.TheRingess (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason I express the doubt on existence - is because there are a few gurus that I know of, who have the name Swarupananda. Its a popular Hindu name. There is no evidence what so ever that he was given sainthood (I believe he was never given a 'sainthood'), nor is any evidence that he himself is notable. If specific references are given in the article, then we can discuss it further, at the moment the article is not meeting 'the guidelines included in the link on notability'. As per TheRingess. Wikidās ॐ 05:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on the basis that there is an inconclusive debate on the notability. Proving notability seems to be more fitting for someone from the Hindu project or an expert in the field, I would keep until we reach consensus from there than a nonsensical google competition by us. Rasadam (talk) 18:43, 1 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.