Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devayan

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devayan

advertisement/self-promotion

• Keep. Since yesterday, we, the creators of the article, were confronted with a number of very surprising incidents involving the user goethean. First, the article was tagged as disputed by goethean because it supposedly violated Wikipedia’s rules of neutrality. Quoting from the user goethean; “It is not written from a neutral point of view. It will have to be re-written to conform with Wikipedia standards of neutrality. Specifically, the unattributed claims that a god led men to write a particular book represent a particular point of view and must be attributed to those who hold these claims…” We made the changes requested by this user and asked him to have the disputed tag removed. Instead of acknowledging the changes, he put a request that this article be entirely deleted. We find this absolutely incomprehensible. He claims that this article is meant for self-promotion. This article can in no way be considered self-promotion, as the author, Dr. Hajari, passed away in 1978. goethean also said that he did a search on google for Hajari+Devayan, and the search engine only provided two relevant hits. We would like to suggest to goethean that he makes another search in google for Devayan, and he will find many websites associated with the epic Devayan. Dr. Hajari was a life long devoted disciple of Sri Aurobindo, and Sri Aurobindo was his guru. If he received any assistance from his guru, then there should be no reason for surprise. In the article, we have attributed all supposed claims to the author, Dr. Hajari, and the article in no way suggests that these claims are absolute facts. goethean also mentioned that Devayan is not listed amongst the books issued by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. It’s a fact that many ashramites have written books which have been published outside the ashram. Since this was our first Wikipedian article, we did not know that we did not have the right to delete comments posted by other users. We deleted goethean’s comments. After he told us that this was not allowed, we apologized to him and he put his comments back on the page. And as far as we know, we are allowed to post links on other articles which could be related to the subject matter. If still there are any points which need to be ironed out in the article, we would be more than pleased to make the changes. Considering all of the above, we strongly feel that this article SHOULD NOT BE DELETED!!

19:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment There's only 2 separate google hits for Hajari+Devayan, one of which is a home page and the other a New Delhi book catalog. This is dishonest self-promotion --- the article's author claims that Sri Aurobindo was involved in the composition of this epic, a claim for which no evidence is offered. Sri Aurobindo is sort of the Indian equivalent of Benjamin Franklin or Alexander Hamilton. The Sri Aurobindo Ashram publishes all books that Aurobindo wrote, and this title is not among them. --goethean ॐ 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The author of the article [1] [2] has removed the disputed tag, has blanked the talk page, has spammed many articles with links to this one, and has attempted to protect the article. --goethean ॐ 15:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

More recently, they're just vandalising the Scientology article, --Icelight 22:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I've searched high and low, and though the book does appear to be refered to more often without his name, it's not by much, and most of those references are copies of a single boilerplate. Unless someone can come forth with some off-line references that are authoritative, I have to say that this is a non-notable book by a non-notable author (WP:NOT a soap box). -Harmil 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It seems like the book could indeed form a page of its own, if the claims behind it can be backed up and the POV is removed. --Several Times 19:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot find much in the way of a basis for the notability of this book. Many of the links searching for just the title turn up either unrelated pages, or links back to the home page, often on user-submission sites. The article is also still not encyclopedic in the least, as it affirms that the book is a true prediction of the future. (Curiously, my crystal ball shows something completely different...) --Icelight 22:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete; non-notable fringe book by unknown cult. Note that this book is not authored by Aurobindo (which might have made it encycolpedia-worthy). --Bambaiah 09:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The first comment is a typical Chewbacca Defense, BJAODN-worthy I think. - Sikon 10:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the usual. Radiant_>|< 14:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: the keepability of an article is in inverse proportion to the average length of comment required in its defence in VfD. (And for the other reasons given above.)-Splash 18:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:08, 23 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.