Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Priddy

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 Keep - Yomangani^talk 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Priddy

Fails WP:RS, WP:BIO. Non-Notable; Self-promotion; Vanity article: Priddy created his own page [1] SSS108 ^talk-email 17:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This Robert Priddy should not be confused with several other famous people with the same name, specifically Robert T. Priddy, Robert L. Priddy, Robert F. Priddy, charitable Robert & Ruby Priddy, photographer Robert Priddy or airline founder Robert Priddy. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough for a stub even if the original author needs to be...dealt with. NeoFreak 21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He looks notable enough, and reviewing the history involving the related conflicts, I am having trouble believing that this nomination was made in good faith. WP:POINT. This whole drama shows us all the reason why it's risky to discuss politics or religion.OfficeGirl 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: How exactly are you assessing notability? Most of the books listed on his website are web-books. The other stuff is related to his college work. If I did not feel that there was sufficient reason to vote for deletion, I would not have made the request. The article will never progress beyond a stub because of Priddy's lack of notability, in my opinion. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Commment: I disagree that this article will always remain a stub. The main reason why Priddy is notable is because he was a staunch follower of Sathya Sai Baba who turned into a staunch critic and prolific writer about the subject. It is possible to digress on his writings critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 10:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Andries, name even one reputable or reliable source that has made reference to Robert Priddy. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Andries rationalization. By Andries reasoning, then all staunch critics of Sai Baba's that became followers would also be very notable. Who are they and where are they mentioned in Wikipedia? This is another of Andries' ploys to push his anti-Sai agenda and nothing more. The MOST notable thing Priddy ever did was get a very well respected book publisher (Samuel Weiser) to publish his pro-Sai Baba book. This is NOT an easy thing to do as these publishers only pick so many books per year and they must believe they will make back their investment by selling millions of books. But Priddy had to go to an unknown independent publisher with an anti-Sai agenda to get his anti-Sai Baba book published because NO reputable publisher would touch it. Freelanceresearch 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. His academic publications show him as a scientist if nothing else. Gaurasundara 07:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely no information on his bio showing Robert Priddy ever even received a degree? Why? Does he even have a degree, and if so, what is it in? In other words, what are Priddy's actual credentials for being called a scientist?Freelanceresearch 06:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject is notable. It is unseemly, to say the least, for followers of a particular guru to nominate the article of the critic of their guru for deletion. — goethean ॐ 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Strange, because no one complained or suspected Andries motives or intentions when he had Kasturi's article deleted. Kasturi is mentioned in numerous books, published books and is far more notable than Priddy. Funny how people see it one way but not the other. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The article Narayana Kasturi (Sathya Sai Baba's hagiographer) was deleted by somebody else because I filed a copyright complaint which was completely justified. Andries 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: You submitted Kasturi's article for deletion because you said he was "non-notable". The copyright issue was another issue. SSS108 ^{talk-pecial:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Commment No, I did not. Feel free to re-create the article Narayana Kasturi that was deleted only because of a copyright violation. Andries 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If you knew anything about me, you would know that I have never defended anything that Andries has done -- quite the opposite. — goethean ॐ 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Published author, several books. I also agree with goethean. M Alan Kazlev 21:53, 20 November 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.