Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Mata

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. No notability claims here apply to guidelines. CitiCat ^♫ 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tara Mata

Tara Mata (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable spiritual person. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Cap'n Walker

• Keep: A quick search on Amazon shows she wrote at least one book and is mentioned in another. The article should reference these. Toddstreat1 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She nets numerous google hits (870k +) and is notable in relation to the self-realization fellowship.Bakaman 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • COmment. 870k Google hits?! 870,000?? She gets 278 unique Google hits, out of a total 1,040 results. Try using quotes, "Tara Mata". Crazysuit 04:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As stated above, she only gets 278 Google hits (some of which aren't even about her), and no non-trivial coverage. Crazysuit 04:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourcing is improved... a book someone wrote is not generally a great reference on the events of their own life, and a passing mention in another book isn't enough either. --W.marsh 20:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable Sfacets 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Firstly, the article is verified and there is potential for the article to be expanded greatly (more research needs to be done). Secondly, Tara Mata is a very notable member of Self Realization Fellowship. She was the main editor of Paramahansa's books when he was writing extensively. It must also be taken into consideration that SRF in itself is a very notable organization. Moreover, using google to establish notability here is not accurate because Tara Mata was a very reserved monk. She was highly praised by Yogananda during his lifetime and she was a larger-than-life presence in the organization until her death in 1971. Tara Mata was one of Yogananda's most trusted disciples, heading the organization's publishing operation and serving for many years on the SRF's board of directors. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable; the question is not verifiability... the Ghits do not show any non-trivial coverage. Leaving the Ghits aside, notability would need to be proven in other ways, which isn't apparent in the article. SkierRMH 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I fail to see any notability. --Slartibartfast1992 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Well, she was the main editor of Yogananda's books and writings. Surely, that is notable in itself? Moreover, she was also a member of the board of directors within SRF. That in itself is a notable position. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. Google hits are, of course, not the most reliable of proofs, but only 287 hits doesn't exactly scream "notable!". In addition, it has to have independent notability, that is, notability by itself. It shouldn't solely rely on a parent entity for notability. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Sure, Yogananda is notable enough to have her own article, but that doesn't necessarily mean that her editor is notable enough. There are cases where this doesn't hold true, but in my opinion, this isn't one of those. --Slartibartfast1992 22:33, 1 November 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.