Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eugene Davis

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. It boils down to "the sources establish notability" vs. "the sources do establish notability", and neither argument came out on top. MuZemike 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Eugene Davis

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

Moved here to AfD after article was restored in an RfD discussion. Citing only works by the subject of the article, the article does not show enough to indicate that Mr. Davis meets - or clears - the WP:BIO notability bar. Links to this article from others have the appearance of a walled garden. B.Wind (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, no WP:RS. Verbal chat 20:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's apparently very, very popular in India. One quick search showed all of those references that I have added. I believe he is notable enough. Silver seren^C 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ELs to superficial puff-pieces in the Indian press do not amount to "significant coverage" (also it's odd that a US born/based person gets coverage primarily from a different continent). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India is an entirely notable source. And those articles are entirely about him. What policy is this article failing? Silver seren^C 02:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Puff pieces" = superficial and insubstantial = not "significant coverage" (required per WP:GNG), regardless of the reliability of the source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is a spiritual teacher and author of two books; he grew up, read books, was trained and ordained by a yogi, was appointed a minister and later head of a Self-Realization Fellowship Center, spent time in the army, and travelled. This does not satisfy WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basic criteria of WP:BIO are satisfied by the numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTHOR requires evidence of impact, WP:GNG requires in-depth coverage in independent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for inclusion is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

The Indian newspaper fulfills all of these requirements and several of them is directly about him. So, he is not failing WP:GNG. And I do not believe WP:AUTHOR is correct to use here. Besides that, he is the head of an organization, further verifying notability. Silver seren^C 12:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's some substantial (although not extensive) coverage and here's a book review in what seems to be a reliable source for its field. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment relisted for further discussion of the new sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: assuming that these "new sources" are Phil Bridger's, not the ELs in the article (which have already been extensively commented upon & dismissed), I'd make the following comment. Neither source appears to give any depth of coverage to Davis. The French source is a single paragraph that appears to spend more time on a Swiss conference he attended than anything else. The Yoga Journal article spends almost half its length discussing the Yoga sutras before even mentioning Davis' book, and barely touches upon Davis himself. Besides, the presence on the page of an advertisement for Davis' Center for Spirtual Awareness that is as large as the review itself gives a strong impression of a 'pay for play' (you advertise, we review) arrangement. My above 'delete' opinion therefore stands. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: the entirety of this insubstantial coverage could be summarised as 'Davis was born, studied under Paramahansa Yogananda, formed his own yoga center and occasionally travels to India.' Nothing to distinguish him from any other yoga teacher (let alone "widely cited by their peers or successors", "originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" or "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" per WP:BIO). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment as nom. The sources mentioned by Phil Bridger add slight weight regarding WP:BIO as the former (French) article mentions his name nominally and does not discuss him at all; the book review is focused solely on the book, not its author. I still see no reliable source that actually discusses him; thus I reiterate my recommendation for deletion.B.Wind (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:BIO. See this article and this article from The Times of India. There is also this Google Books result, which provides information about his year of birth, as well as some biographical details. Cunard (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly-notable. Words are quoted in Yoga Gems: A Treasury of Practical and Spiritual Wisdom from Ancient and Modern Masters a book of spiritual quotes compiled by no other than Georg Feuerstein, a highly-regarded academic authority in Indologic studies (p.108). Appears in the "New Thought Luminaries" section of Susan G. Shumsky's Miracle Prayer: Nine Steps to Creating Prayers That Get Results (p. 295). Organizational profile and bio seems to be notable enough to be covered at James R. Lewis' The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions (p. 195). Words are quoted and duly-attributed on p. 30 of The Genius of Great Achievers: How You Can Accomplish the Impossible by Dr. Darryl Wheat, Terresa Ray, and Dottie Albertine. Name mentioned and work recommended on p. 54 of Choose to Be Healthy by Susan Smith Jones and Wayne Dyer. Deemed notable by Swami Krishnananda to include their entire conversation in p. 154 of his (Krishnananda's) book Your Questions Answered. And so many mentions in different self-help and spiritually books that it just seems second nature to them that the guy is a respected authority worth mentioning, discussing and even quoting verbatim. - Shannon Rose ^Talk 19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: of the sources that Shannon Rose lists, only The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions has the potential to meet "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That source gives three, fairly short, paragraphs to the CSA, the first and largest being for its founding before Davis came on board. Only the second paragraph focuses on Davis. Whilst this source adds slightly to notability, it does not come close to constituting "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi Hrafn, all those that were mentioned are "reliable sources independent of the subject." None of those authors are connected to Roy Eugene Davis in any way, and they are not your average unknown self-published authors but respected authorities in their fields like Georg Feuerstein, James R. Lewis, and Wayne Dyer. Let us not over-interpret "significant coverage" here. Yoga Gems: A Treasury of Practical and Spiritual Wisdom from Ancient and Modern Masters, for example, is a book of quotes from people deemed as "masters" by Dr. Feuerstein. The inclusion of a quote from Davis in a book of quotes is significant coverage relative to the nature of the book. Not to mention that it isn't just a book of quotes from random folks, but a book of quotes from masters. We cannot measure "significant coverage" based on the number of paragraphs devoted to Davis in a given publication. If there exist all these books coming from different places and written by different people who are themselves notable, each alluding to Davis as an authority, their collective presence would outweigh 2 or 3 full newspaper articles. On p. 124 of Paramhansa Swami Yogananda: Life Portrait and Reminiscences Sri Sailendra Bejoy Dasgupta wrote: "Roy Eugene Davis is one of the most noteworthy of Yoganandaji's disciples... He has a great number of aspiring followers and devotees in many parts of America and Europe, where there are branches of his institution as well... Well-known for his erudite speech and writing, Roy Davis' many books are read in all circles." And here we realize that the author was right because, as previously-mentioned, it just seems second nature for everyone in the Eastern Philosophy, Yoga, New Thought, and Welness fields to quote and praise his works. In Centering: A Guide to Inner Growth by Sanders G. Laurie and Melvin J. Tucker p. 188, the authors quoted another author who mentioned Davis in his (the other author's) book Dream Your Way to Happiness and Awareness, then proceeded to describe Davis on their own as "an expert on yoga, meditation, and creative imagination" We have loads of third-party published sources with this kind of information about the subject, labeling someone with as wide and diverse a coverage as this as "un-notable" looks like a direct assault to commonsense. - Shannon Rose ^Talk 21:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Shannon-the-Shouter. Quotes are by their nature not "significant coverage", and are seldom on the topic of their utterer. Nor is being simply named/recommended "significant coverage". Miracle Prayer contains a bare "trivial" mention. I had assumed, from the context, that Krishnananda was associated with Davis. Closer investigation reveals no direct association however. But it is unclear whether a (presumably short) conversation (which would be a WP:PRIMARY source) would contain "significant coverage" on the topic of Davis. A single paragraph in the epilogue of Paramhansa Swami Yogananda: Life Portrait and Reminiscences is more substantive than the rest of this -- but hardly sufficient basis for a biography. A few words of praise & a few quotes does not make for "significant coverage", and does not provide sufficient basis for an encyclopaedic biographical article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of your first sentence, please keep this discussion civil, Hrafn. And this really goes for both of you. Please refrain from derogatory comments and just focusing on presenting your arguments. The purpose of this discussion is to civilly show, due to policy one way or the other, whether this article should or should not be deleted. Please focus on that and not each other.Silver seren^C 15:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren: a shouted signature is disruptive (you should see the mess its repeated use makes of the article's talkpage) and is deserving of a comment. You might note that the vast majority of my comment was 'focused' on content. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous sources which establish notability. Note the need to search on the various permutations of his name such as Roy E. Davis, R.E. Davis, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the stories in the Indian newspapers, listed incorrectly as external links, are good references. They're full stories. I cannot tell to what extent they are based on PR, but they are the new newspapers from there that we usually rely on. There is therefore no reason to be concerned about whether or not the quotes alone would be significant. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 5 October 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.