Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Svoboda

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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Svoboda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable alt-med doctor. The page appears to be overly promotional and the sources largely come from the guy himself. A search for reliable sources turned up very little on him in particular. Delta13C (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert Svoboda is very notable in his circles and is well referenced in talks given on youtube. While he is self referenced, there are high quality books in print by him which have verifiable information. http://www.amazon.in/Robert-Svoboda/e/B000APFNOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.142.44.218 (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete In the article the only suitable source for notability is the yoga journal[1], which makes the claim that he is the first Westerner ever to obtain an Indian degree in Ayurveda and be licensed to practice Ayurveda in India. That seems to be the main basis of his notability and it may be enough, but I have found no good sources that really make much of a deal about it. A search has turned up trivial mentions in International business times Telegraph and the Australian. Although reliable sources the articles themselves don't inspire much confidence and are more blog than proper journalism. The Yoga journal is the only non-trivial mention found so far and I just don't think it is enough. AIRcorn (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an example of just exactly the kind of entry the notability rules were developed to address. If we don't have enough independent sources to provide a balanced entry, representing more than just one point of view--as much as I like Yoga Journal--then we don't have enough for an encyclopedia entry. Doesn't mean it's not a good topic, just means it's not sourced at the level of reliability of information we ask of encyclopedia entries. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2016 (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.