Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Nithyananda

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. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paramahamsa Nithyananda

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

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. He has been covered and published in mainstream media The Hindu, Indian Express, economic times, deccan herald. And he used to write regularly in Ananda Vikatan (behind paywall). has been a subject of controversy too in Tamil print media.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Here is some more links from reputed sources - LA times on the first Kumbh Mela in the US being inaugurated by Nithyananda The LA Times, and some coverage from reputed Malaysian newspapers new strait times & the star. He is also the current chairman of the 20 year old International Vedic Hindu Univ with its campus in Orlando, Florida. Acnaren —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is dreadful, but the subject appears to meet notability with the sourcing noted above. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (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.