Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuvashakti

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. W.marsh 13:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yuvashakti

Yuvashakti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a sub-article about a religious organization, which does not have any reliable sources, and does not have any assertion of notability. Multiple attempts to merge/redirect the subject to a more appropriate location have been reverted by someone with a conflict of interest, so I am proceeding to AfD. Recommend speedy deletion, otherwise they're just going to trot in another herd of sockpuppets, like they did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International. --NovaSTL 06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete no assertion of group's notability. Tagged. Kavadi carrier 07:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - bad faith nom. novaSTL has been persistantly pushing his POV in continuously labeling the organisation cult-like, not participating in discussion, and bad-faith attitude (see comment above for example). The article is a stub, more content is forthcoming, and yet, well aware of this fact, here we are. Sfacets 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

note: A reference has been added. Sfacets 11:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Not a bad faith nom. The article has been around for a year, without any valid sources. That's plenty of time to allow for expansion, especially considering that there's been a merge template on it for the last few weeks. I would also point out that Sfacets (talk • contribs) has previously been blocked for disruption [1], and has a long history of reverts and false personal attacks. --NovaSTL 07:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I had been blocked (mistakenly, I might add) once a long time ago. I now have many thousands of edits under this username. A long history of reverts and false personal attacks? Such as? As usual this user has demonstrated his total disregard for proof to back his arguments and relies on generalisations. Also please note that NovaSTL is a sockpuppet, Sockpuppeteer unknown. it shows bad faith that he would refer to my one supposed transgression in the past, when he will not even share his real identity. Sfacets 09:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Stop it, both of you. We're here to discuss the fate of the article, not the contributor(s). In any case I must say that "more content is forthcoming" is probably the most common argument used to argue for an article to be kept — and the most vacuous and ineffective. Kavadi carrier 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Stammer 11:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - weak assertions of notability. Please note that AfD is not the place for such bickering: get a room. Moreschi 13:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per sfacets. I'm trying to find some links.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --  Doctor Bruno  16:00, 5 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.