Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddaroda

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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siddaroda

~~Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddharudh Swami. Subject is still non-notable and there are no reliable sources stating otherwise. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw nomination per comments by Abecedare and Phil Bridger. Arguements for a recreation of the deleted article (in another name) merit a Keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Siddharudha Swami. Subject was a very well-known religious figure and teacher of Swami Ramdas (he persuaded Ramdas to reenter non-ascetic life) and Muktananda (he gave Muktananda that name). Hubli, at one time, was chiefly known for his Siddharoodha Matha, which was visited by people all over (present day) Maharashtra-Karnataka,[1] including Lokmanya Tilak in 1919 and Mahatma Gandhi in 1924. [2] Plenty of hits on Google books, some of which represent devotee literature and need to be used with care. Also note the several variants in transliteration, including Siddharudh/Siddharudha/Siddaroda/Siddharoodha + Swami/Swamy, which makes searching for sources difficult. Article needs to be referenced and cleaned of hyperbole and peacockery, but notability is easily established. Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not seem to me to be sufficient that we state that sources exist that prove notability they need to be provided. If an interested editor comes along and provides those sources in the article then I'll change my vote. I also see no problem deleting the article and then later recreating with reliable sources.TheRingess (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up as per Abecedare. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abecedare has demonstrated that sources exist. In response to TheRingess's comment above, they have been provided, just click on the links above. If you want references to them to be in the article then you are just as capable of putting them there as anyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Nom changed vote to Keep per arguements above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2009 (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.