Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Madhavnath Maharaj

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. Shereth 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Madhavnath Maharaj

Non notable, original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - Wikidās ॐ 17:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsurprisingly, your Google seaches are so restrictive as to actually be deceptive. Why would you search on a string which excludes other transliterations of 'Shri'? Here's a real Google Books search. Google Scholar. Google Web. — goethean ॐ 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am afraid that one mention of Madhavnath in the list of not notable persons without any clue as to notability is just not what is described in WP:NOTABILITY. May be you should read up on it to understand what it means. This one is clear case. Wikidās ॐ 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Navnath Sampradaya, assuming reliable sources. ~ priyanath talk 03:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After 5 days of discussion in this Afd, there are still no reasons to believe this subject to be notable. There are no reliable sources to establish notability. Also, the article might be original research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending further research, which depends on there being time available to do so, and per Goethean. There are two sources in the ref section in the article, one apparently a biography. It is a great deal easier and quicker to nominate an article for AfD (especially without research, or disregarding the presence of multiple substantial reliable sources in the article or easily available elsewhere) than to research one, with all the possible spelling variants in this particular area. It is easier to destroy than to build. It is thus easier to overwhelm Wikipedia's and individual editors' capacity to cope within an artificial time frame if articles are nominated without restraint and sufficient reason.John Z (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Your reason above for voting keep was, "pending further research, which depends on there being time available to do so." As this debate has been listed for over 10 days, this can be interpreted as ample time for research. At this point, do you have anything to share as far as claims to notability and reliable sources to verify these claims? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply As I said, there are two references in the article already. They're hard to check. The reliable, easily accessible stuff online on Madhavnath is in relation Sai Baba This refers to Madhavnath as a "well known saint." The ref Nathasampradaya, uday va vistaar by Dr. Prahlad Narhar Joshi is not online, but seems to be cited in scholarly work - see some hits here [1] and Joshi seems to be a reasonable expert[2], unfortunately the rest of the entry is on a restricted page. According to some previews of things citing Joshi, it seems to have material on a few dozen Hindu saints, like this subject. Haven't been able to come up with anything on the other reference, which seems to be a biography; I've contacted the article creator, AKapadi, who probably has these references, and could explain how they are used.John Z (talk) 20:46, 22 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.