Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiv-Goraksha Babaji

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. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 15:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shiv-Goraksha Babaji

subject is non-notable 999 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

People moving comments around on this vote page need to kindly knock it off. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per my nomination, subject is non-notable. Google returns only 63 hits [1] which seem to be contained on less than 20 distinct sites. See also related non-notable page which was up for AfD recently [2] -999 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is suspected to be yet another attempt at "sneaky vandalism" per WP:VANDALISM by user:Adityanath as another of his sockpuppets. This article has major significance as a subject two huge fields of spirituality: Kriya Yoga and Nath Sampradaya. This article has probably about two dozen unique references to ancient and modern texts, and to major modern topics that bring up hundreds of thousands of Google search returns for keywords such as "Kriya Yoga", "Mahavatar Babaji", "Gorakshanath", "Yogananda", "Gorakhnath", "Nath Sampradaya", "Shiva", "Trimurti", "Yogiraj Gurunath", etc. Hamsacharya dan 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Dan, you are being paranoid. I had nothing to do with this nomination. To show my good faith, I will abstain from voting. —Adityanath 15:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Too late, you already voted as 999. Hamsacharya dan 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. That an article was typed up with many external links or that terms used within it have numerous Google search returns are in of themselves unimpressive. Whether the subject is notable ought to be the question, not whether its inventor claims parallels to other subjects which might be. RGTraynor 17:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - This man was the beginner of a huge hinduism subsect known as Nath. He is like the Jesus or Mohammed or Abraham of this subsect which has hundreds of thousands of followers worldwide. He has written a number of books including Goraksha Samhita, Goraksha Gita, Siddha Siddhanta Paddhati, Yoga Martanada, Yoga Siddhanta Paddhati, Yoga-Bija, Yoga Chintamani, and has started numerous practices such as Laya Yoga, Hatha Yoga, etc...Please see variants of his name Gorakhnath which gives around 32,000 links [3]Gorakh Nath which gives over 9000 links [4] Gorakshanath [5] which brings up 575 on google, with Shiv-goraksha [6] which pulls up 622 pages on google. This article is HIGHLY notable in Indian religion - everybody in India knows who this person is, and there's about 15 major pilgrimage sites associated with him - this figure is well known and has been written about in countless ancient texts (which unfortunately do not have representation of Google yet), and several modern ones, as is evidenced by the content of the article. There is no reason to delete this article. It is only being listed out of spite from an editor that is being investigated for sockpuppeting. Hamsacharya dan 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Other variants:
        • Shiv Goraksha Nath
        • Shiva Goraksha Nath
        • Guru Gorakh Nath
        • Guru Gorakshanath
        • Shiva Gorakshanath
        • Gorakh Baba or Babaji
        • Goraksha Babaji or Baba
      • 'Comment - you have to put multi-word subjects in quotes, properly done, "Shiv-goraksha" has 97 hits [7]. —Adityanath 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Urr ... no. This is a bit of a bait and switch. I read through both articles, and as far as I see, "Shiv-Goraksha Babaji" isn't the historical 11th century religious figure Gorakhnath. It is an alleged spirit that some guru claimed visited him around 1960 and claims is Gorakhnath, only he felt like renaming the spirit. That information from this article might be useful in the Gorakhnath entry I'll leave to others, but claiming Gorakhnath's notability for this article is tantamount to me writing a vanity article about my cat claiming that Jesus is possessing her, and declaring my cat's article notable because Jesus has a whole whopping lot of Google hits. RGTraynor 13:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC) In light of Dan's information I change to Weak keep and redirect to the more notable spelling. I also caution dan to not make accusations about sockpuppetry unless you're prepared to take them to WP:RFCU. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as primary author Hamsacharya dan has changed his vote to delete. ---Baba Louis 03:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom. or merge but only to Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath per RGTraynor's insightful analysis. Does not belong in Gorakshanath who was an historical individual.. ---Baba Louis 16:38, 3 April 2006
• Keep - No issues requiring deletion. unsigned comment by 129.188.33.221 (talk • contribs)
• Keep What a surreal AfD. Anyway, the article is almost unintelligible to the casual reader and needs cleanup, but Google convinces me that this is a (at least somewhat) notable figure. Sandstein 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gorakshanath. If you read the article, it's apparent that this is just another name for Gorakshanath, among many other variant names and spellings (see 'Other Variants' above). It's even stated in the article: "Shiva-Gorakshanath (Guru Gorakhnath)". ॐ Priyanath 21:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep or Merge with Gorakshanath or Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. This information is much more in depth and well researched than what is on Gorakshanath page. Adityanath created this page when he didn't know anything about the subject - I had to come in and clean it up in addition to what was already there from Hamsa Dan. It should have never been created but immediately been integrated with one of the two pages above. It's ridiculous that it's even on AfD. This is an enormous subject in India. There are probably about 30 books written by or on the subject before 1800. Most of them are in sanskrit and haven't yet been translated. Kalagni Nath 23:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge, as per Priyanth (or Kalagni Nath). --moof 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• CommentDo not consider on any point of serious scholarship to merge this article with the Gorakshanath article. Gorakshanath was an influencial Indian personality who lived between 700-1000 years ago. Gorakshanath is dead. Shiv-Goraksha Babaji is a fictional character, the ultimate meat puppet a few people are attempting to breath life into. We have limited antecdotal reference to Shiv-Goraksha Babaji and no facts whatsoever of "his" objective existence. To say with a straight face that Gorakshanath is the same being as Shiv-Goraksh Baba one must be culpable for supporting the concept of physical immortality. This idea would be laughed off most WP articles in a heart-beat. There is no reason it should be considered here. Chai Walla 22:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 68.127.175.116 18:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 67.36.189.228 19:55, 8 April 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.