Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberguru

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 of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberguru

Vanity neoglism. Created by User:Cyberguru and vanity as evidenced by this version. Current version simply attempts to and context to a neoglism. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: previous version of the page cited above borders on the edge of vandalism. This is nothing more than a neologism created by the page's creator. Complete lack of reliable sources. --Hetar 05:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. Gwernol 10:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Beno1000 13:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Comment Cyberguru has 24,000 g-hits, top ones are for a Portal that does not seem related. The Soul in Cyberspace has a score of about 1 million on Amazon, but astrributes a different author from the one in the article. :) Dlohcierekim 18:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons NawlinWiki 22:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete for the original article was well compiled and wikified as evidenced by this version until User:Outriggr completely messed it up by what he called dePROD, add wikify, remove [WP:VAIN] material, cats. The result is a non-wikified and non-coherent article, but not the original version.
  • 1. The original article is NOT vanity neoglism, but an introduction of a new term that can be applied to certain individuals like myself. Quote: "One may not believe the objective reality of these mystic influences in either case, but one cannot dismiss the reality of sadhus and gurus. Likewise one cannot question the reality of cybergurus."
    2. Also it does NOT lack reliable resources unless you call John Perry Barlow, Mark Pesce, Tom Ray and Jeff Zaleski such.
    3. However you decide - this is your game - I have already done my part here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberguru (talk • contribs).

Buddy, you might want to not attack the person who tried to save your article from being deleted. (I could have gone either way.) You don't think "the very first cyberguru is [me]" isn't vanity, with a big picture of yourself plastered up there? (rhetorical question) Outriggr 00:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom. Outriggr 00:05, 17 May 2006 (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.