Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S S M Ashramam

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. J04n(talk page) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S S M Ashramam

S S M Ashramam (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)

Could not find a reliable source talking about subject. Fails Notability, possible WP:ARTSPAM Evano1van (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Clearly a non-notable topic. No third-party sources to establish notability. smtchahal(talk) 12:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • notable organization it is clearly notable topic as this ashram is notable one concern area. there is also third party sources to establish the same. one may find it,s relevancy through web,images, maps and other sources.so it is suggested not to be deleted as there is neither dispute nor other claims from any body. (112.79.41.116 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)) — 112.79.41.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • objection for deletion SSM Ashramam is a short form to the Sri Surya Savarnika manavu Ashramam which is non profit registered Hindu religious Society.There are reliable sources and among one of them is - http://ssmasramam.blogspot.in) and also https://maps.google.co.in/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&q=S%20S%20M%20Ashramam (Raraja123 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A link on Google maps and to the organization's own blog do not establish notability. The nature of the objections on the part of the creator, in addition to the tone of the article, reek of WP:ADVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep.It is about an Ashram which is notable one in a particular State.As it is about an Hindu organization some of the non Hindu users may ask for deletion, which is highly objectionable.More ever,as the organization activities are non commercial,question of advertise does not arise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manavu (talk • contribs) 10:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — Manavu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Before claiming the article to be notable, you must know what "notability" exactly means. Here at Wikipedia, a topic is not notable unless it has significant coverage in reliable, third party sources (and that is just one of the conditions of notability; see WP:GNG for all of them). The problem with this article is that the sources provided are primary and can by no means be considered to be reliable sources, as I suggested above. smtchahal(talk) 11:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not correct to say that this Article having primary sources only. It is also having third party sources.For example See (http://www.mojostreet.com/place/ReligiousSpiritual-Centers/S-S-M-Ashramam-India-Khammam-517327 ),so keep it. (Manavu (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
      • Having a blog or being listed in a directory does not count as third party sources. A reliable third party source would be (for example) a newspaper article about the subject. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and like all encyclopedias, the vast majority of potential subjects do not meet inclusion criteria. It's nothing personal, please understand that. I have a great deal of respect for the Hindu religion and its adherents, so despite your stated belief to the contrary, I would never, ever suggest deletion on that basis. In fact, I did my own search in case you just misunderstood the idea behind third party sources, but still found nothing which would even suggest that the Ashram may be notable. HillbillyGoat (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find any third-party sources at all, and even those arguing for Keep could only cite the subject's blog, a Google Maps entry, and an online directory listing. Very clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines. HillbillyGoat (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Even A Google map entry also verified by the public or users.The Google won't publish entries unless it is reliable. More ever Search engine test also reveals the notability of the Article. (Raraja123 (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Raraja123 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    • There are many Google map entries and they are all generally made by the public and can be edited by anyone. As you mentioned, the entries are "verified" by the public and the users, not by Google officials themselves. I've myself seen fake Google map entries and they never get deleted. However, you'd be mistaken to compare them to Wikipedia articles, where reliable sources must be provided if the content is to be kept, unlike those map entries. Again, Google map entries (or any entries of the sort) cannot be considered to be reliable sources. Sources like newspaper publications (as HillbillyGoat mentioned), books written by remarkable people, etc. are some examples of what (at Wikipedia) are considered to be reliable sources.
    • My YouTube videos are included in (relevant) Google searches. But does that make them reliable sources? No. YouTube videos are, in most cases, not considered to be reliable sources and hence are usually avoided. Tons of webpages on the internet can be reached using Google searches, but not all of is it surely what Wikipedia considers "reliable sources". Please take your time to read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before making frivolous appeals to keep the article without good reasons. These discussions on Wikipedia are absolutely based on the Wikipedia guidelines and decisions are also taken in accordance with the same. smtchahal(talk) 13:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You only get to !vote once Raraja123. Mkdwtalk 07:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Smtchahal notes, I see there no reliable coverage, only WP:SELFPUB. Also worth noting that of the four keeps above, two are from the same user, and the other two are from users with very few contributions and so who may be unfamiliar with WP:GNG etc. —me_and 19:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 07:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the editor who relisted. I have noted that Raraja123 !voted twice and was last active one year ago regarding this same subject and may have been canvassed here. Also, that there are two other SPA editors who have only edited this AFD and the article. Mkdwtalk 07:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with reservations. There is a clear lack of English-language sources. However, looking only for English-language sources introduces a clear WP:Systematic_bias to the encyclopaedia: as a thought experiment, consider how much of the en.wikipedia.org would be wiped out if we insisted on sources in Hindi. I suppose I'm mostly saying this to encourage editors to consider that a topic might be notable, even without English-language sources; I lack the skills to find such sources myself. In this case, the lack of any linked articles on other-language Wikipedias suggests that there aren't sources in other langauges, either (or maybe there's a huge article on hi.wikipedia.org but nobody thought to link it). Dricherby (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no hard and fast rule to decide the eligibility of the articles to be published in Encyclopedia. Wiki pedia instructions are mere guide lines to the users.I found some such guide lines in favour of this Article also, i.e using Blog pages as reliable sources, subject to condition that Article should not be about a living person. Admittedly this Article about A registered Hindu religious Society which is a Non commercial one. Daily so many blog readers and other persons verifies this organization whereabouts through various reliable sources including Blogs.. For Example see this link (https://plus.google.com/102820381674917370132) &(http://www.mojostreet.com/explore/Enkoor/Andhra-Pradesh).(Raraja123 (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    It's true that there are no hard and fast rules. Nonetheless there are policies and guidelines that shouldn't be ignored without good reason. These include WP:GNG, which states that an article must receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
    http://ssmasramam.blogspot.in/ doesn't count, since it's not independent. Google Maps doesn't count, since it's not reliable. Google Plus isn't reliable per WP:SPS, and the link you've provided doesn't give significant coverage anyway. http://www.mojostreet.com/explore/Enkoor/Andhra-Pradesh also does not count as significant coverage.
    Blog pages can be reliable resources, but per WP:SPS, "self-published media, such as … personal or group blogs … are largely not acceptable as sources." I don't see any of the exceptions listed there applying here. —me_and 20:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As youme agreed, Blog pages can be reliable sources,the only exception is it is not about a living person biography. Here is another blog which is not a personal one,and having a significant coverage regard to said Ashram. (http://ssmanavu.blogspot.in/) (Raraja123 (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
The types of blog that are acceptable are things like professional journalists' blogs on their employers' websites, which are essentially a digital version of a newspaper column, or significant blogs that are themselves notable (and as a guide, it's hard for a blog to become notable without being "famous" and having tens or hundreds of thousands of readers, though notability is not based on the number of readers). Personal blogs are only rarely acceptable and, if they are, probably only as a source for some minor detail.

We are trying to establish WP:NOTABILITY – please follow the link to find out about what that means. For notability, we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and, if we cannot establish notability, then there cannot be an article. It's almost impossible to demonstrate notability using blogs so pointing out more and more blog articles almost certainly won't make a difference: we need something in the mainstream media, in a book or something like that. Dricherby (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reliable sources. This article can be rewritten if sources are found. Transcendence (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S_S_M_Ashramam&oldid=1080465001"