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. Sources presented by the minority Keep !votes was rejected by more experienced (and likely more neutral) participants here, leaving us with a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shivkrupanand Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Recreated following deletion in 2020; sources continue not to support WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Sources are:

• Sponsored content (Forbes "BrandConnect")
• Unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA promo ([1], [2])
• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or non-mentions ([3], [4], [5])

More of the same is all that comes up in WP:BEFORE search: [6], [7], [8]. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spirituality, and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the above source analysis Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Very much PROMO, this is typical [9], rest of the sources are as explained aobve. I don't see enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Current article primarily relies on Indian media sources(WP:NEWSORGINDIA), many of which have questionable reliability. The Forbes India article explicitly mentions that it is a "Brand Post," meaning it is a paid article. Therefore, the article completely fails to meet WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines because the subject has been covered by multiple independent, reliable, While some may argue that the coverage is predominantly local, this claim does not fully reflect the range and scope of the sources cited. The Times of India and Forbes India. This article completely meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG with significant coverage If there is a promo content it can be removed. SATavr (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Forbes is sponsored content, as above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No one argues the coverage was local. We argued the coverage was unreliable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of any reliable sources. If anyone can find and add independent, secondary sources to the page, I am open to changing my mind. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found with passing WP:SIGCOV As he suggested comes with reliability [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]. Rais Mastin (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All of these are unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA items except for this one, which is a WP:USERGENERATED reader blog post on an Indian news site, and this one, which is an official bio and thus both a primary source and non-independent. This item is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Moreover, all of these are already discussed in the nomination statement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- This article has enough sources to prove notabilty, The person is also Author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.58.131.52 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2025 (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.