Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janardanswamy

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. The last comment suggests that the "delete" opinions may be outdated. Sandstein 15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janardanswamy

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

Notability not shown. I proposed merging to the page about this person's disciple Eknath in May 2014 but, although the articles once overlapped,[1] the overlapping material has been removed, probably for lack of sourcing. Only one source has been given, from a website about Eknath, and that is in Hindi. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there seem to be reliable sources in English when one accounts for variable swelling (search Janardan + Eknath). See [2], for example. (The usual spelling seems to be "Janardan Swami"; I am not sure about diacritics.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is as empty as the inside of a pingpong ball. The subject does not appear to have left behind any written works or done anything of repute. Pax 07:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Very weak keep The article's author has all of five edits on the project to their name, the last one a year-and-a-half ago, so I'm dubious that this article will ever be fleshed out in a significant manner that will establish the subject's significance as a historical figure, but Hasirpad is correct; there do seem to be reliable sources which discuss him to some limited degree, if only to say that little is certain about him. Snow talk 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Anupmehra's findings bellow. Snow talk 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A poorly sourced biography that has been tagged for notability for nine months. Clearly fails WP:GNG. BenLinus 1214^talk 01:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -The spelling is messed up, the correct one as suggest above by Hasirpad is "Janardan Swami". Okay, now here is the coverage of subject that helps them meet the WP:BIO and WP:GNG standard, -[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. Seriously, there are more than just enough to establish notability of the subject. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:27, 18 January 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.