Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dharmanidhi Sarasvati

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Jaranda wat's sup 20:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dharmanidhi Sarasvati

Dharmanidhi Sarasvati (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I originally proposed this for deletion, but the proposal was challenged. There are claims of notability but it does not seem to establish notability per WP:ATT, so it fails WP:BIO. It also seems to be somehwat promotional in tone. Delete TheRingess (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - I challenged the proposal for deletion and I'm one of the primary contributors to the article. I've reviewed the WP:ATT page and the WP:BIO pages. I see that [Dharmanidhi Sarasvati] does not meet many of the criteria for notability laid out in WP:BIO, however I suggest that notability may be established by the fact that Dharmanidhi is a recognized lineage holder in the Sarasvati lineage under Swami Satyananda and Swami Niranjananda. There are hundreds of more popular Hatha Yoga teachers in the west, but most of them are not lineage holders, authorized by their guru's to teach authentic and classical yoga. Perhaps in this case can notability be established based on rarity?

Furthermore, although Dharmanidhi may not be popular, or highly referenced, he is a holder and teacher of accurate and verifiable information on yoga, classical tantra, and non-dual philosophy. In contrast the wikipedia entry on non-dual lists several people under the "Contemporary Teachers" heading who are self-proclaimed holders and teachers of information and systems that only they can verify as reliable, truthful, or accurate. Some of them are highly prolific writers and well known in popular culture and therefore have plenty of references, secondary sources, and third-party information about them. However, this doesn't actually mean that what they are offering to world has any alignment with reality or lasting value. I'm not making a judgement either way. I'm saying that no-one has verified the informtion that they are representing. Of course, this isn't the mandate of Wikipedia to exercise that kind of discrimination and I understand that.

By comparison, this is the importance and notability of a living lineage in the area of spirituality. First, the lineage has lasting value because it has demonstrated it by having a multi-generation history of masters who have demonstrated their mastery in one way or another. Second, a person who is an authentic lineage holder has verification from their teachers that they have reached a level of understanding and experiential attainment that has been confirmed by their teacher(s). So, the one thing that would obviously be useful to verify is that the assertion that Dharmanidhi is a lineage holder. Unfortunately, the relationship between teacher and disciple is in this case between the teacher and the disciple only. There are no reliable secondary sources that I know of.

My main point is that users will find it useful and helpful to find reference to an authentic, lineage authorized teacher (however rare and non-notable in the academic sense). There is a lot of incomplete or plain inaccurate information out there about spiritual topics. And there are a lot of spiritual teachers out there who, in contrast, have academic notability (references, prolific publications, and popularity) but the actual content of what they have to say is not backed up by anyone but themselves. This, I think, is the ultimate dis-service to Wikipedia users, to offer a notable source of un-tested information on spirituality, but not offer a reference to a source that is not notable in the encyclopedic sense but is a source of very well tested and refined information on spirituality. On the practical side Dharmanidhi has been quoted in Yoga Journal, one of most popular yoga magazines in America, and an article that he wrote was published in Yoga Magazine which has been in circulation since 1963 and is based in Europe. A writeup in Yogi Times, a free yoga magazine based on the west coast, on his yoga studio in Berkeley mentions and verifies several other pieces on information [1]. Do any of these things help in any way?

Ms2i 20:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete based on scarcity of sources. The Yogi Times article Ms2i found is the best we have, and it's not enough to either establish notability or verify major parts of the article. --Huon 21:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, based on Ms2i resonings. Callelinea 22:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Strong delete - see Special pleading. Nothing much the way of reliable sources, and the whole thing has a promotional smell to it. Gordonofcartoon 23:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Upgraded to Strong Delete on grounds of likely factual unreliability. See my further coment below about different versions of the biography. Also, having looked at the article history and seen it was created by someone who represents the Trika Institute [2], I've passed this on to WP:COI/N. Gordonofcartoon 04:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Question I do not know to what extent the yoga magazines mentioned might be RSs. DGG (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is, these kind of New Age publications tend to be completely uncritical of their subject. A publication called Yoga Times or Yoga Journal is not going to grill a yoga practitioner along the lines of "Prove you read the Tibetan Book of the Dead at seven / wandered the Himalayas in your teens / whatever". They're probably perfectly reliable as sources of what practitioners say about themselves, but not for the verifiability of the content of such statements. Gordonofcartoon 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear on what the priority is here? Is the first priority reliable sources, or is it notability? If the first priority is reliable sources and the community is willing to be flexible on notability, then I'll work hard at getting reliable sources. For example, the IRS has records that state that Trika Institute is a church and a non-profit group. The Ayurvedic Institute probably also has records of Dharmanidhi's tenure there. Also, I'm perfectly willing to pare the article down significantly to remove any suspicion of promotional material and to remove any information that can't be reliably sourced, or to make it into a stub. In that case I'd make sure to get reliable sources for the information that remains. Also, what is RSs? I can verify that the Yogi Times magazine got all the information for that article from the Yoga Mandala studio staff. Thanks. Ms2i 03:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A little Googling finds Dharmanidhi Sarasvati to be the same guy as Kolbjorn Märtens who's into Stav. Compare the biographies at the Trika Institute [3] and Märtens Stav [4]]. Same core biographical details ("born in Chicago in 1962, moved to New York before the age of two, and lived in New Jersey and New York until the age of 21 .. etc") but with entirely different spins on his spiritual lineage. This casts a lot of doubt on the factual accuracy and neutrality of the article - and on the reliability of third-party accounts that just parrot the Yoga-only version. Gordonofcartoon 16:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Covered in relevant media. Yoga Times, and per Ms21.Bakaman 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
But these sources are telling a demonstrably incomplete account - like ignoring that he has a completely different version of his background when he's wearing his Stav hat - so how can they be treated as reliable? Gordonofcartoon 22:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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.