Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj

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. One incident does not make someone notable, per WP:NOT#NEWS, and the sources are suspicious. (For the record, a correctly-formatted Google search for him returns only 37 hits, but that was not a factor in my assessment of consensus.) - KrakatoaKatie 04:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj

Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

• 'Deleteweak keep No sufficient or verifiable claims of notability except for the self published sources. Guru advertisement with references to own sources. Wikidās ॐ 09:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If you changed your vote from Delete to Weak Keep due to this individual's criminal record, then I do not believe it is a worthy arguement. A person's criminal record and/or the accusations against them have little weight as there are many criminals and/or persons accused of crimes. Aside from this point, I believe that this individual is non notable and that the sources are very suspect. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well I've never read an encyclopedic article about someone who was famous for being accused of a crime. And in this case, it doesnt satisfy wikipedia notability. 38.99.101.180 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Strong & Speedy Delete - All references are self published and materials are WP:OR. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Changed my opinion to Strong & speedy delete because a google search redirected me to videos & nonsense self published results, hardly 10 ghits, I dont know why it has survivied so long. He is also a notorious rapist as accused of it by a follower. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• So Wikipedia articles are only for nice, pleasant people? Better get rid of the article on that Mr. Hitler fellow, then. You say he's a "notorious" rapist, which, if your statement is true, would ipso facto make him suitable for an article. "Hardly 10 ghits" - funny, I see a bit over 700. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• If he is a notable rapist guru, I would have changed my opinion. He is not only non-notable, but also notorious in one incident, an accusation of a nn rape incident either. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support a Strong and Speedy Deletion. Anyone disagree? 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article no longer quotes self published material. 74.85.13.60 (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing my opinion to Delete. The common consensus is that the page isnt suitable for an encyclopaedia and that its sort of an advertisement. There are some minor references but they leave alot of primary issues unanswered. I have some Hindi news articles but they are not online. We should consider the suggestion of starting an article in the hindi language section? 74.85.13.60 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Harjk, Can you stop vandalizing the article? Otherwise you should say which part you consider refers to self-published material or original research... If noone can give a reason to delete the article, its not being deleted.
• I am removing the tag. No one has yet given a reason for deleting it. If the wiki page needs changing, then change it yourself, or say whats wrong with it. What is the protocol for repeated abuse of the deletion tag? 86.40.100.198 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

74.85.13.60 (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting your edits. Dont remove AfD tag until the discussion is over. That's our policy. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - The person does seem to be somewhat notable at least in the sense of being a sort of "spiritual teacher". Although ghits != notability, Google Searches do show him to be mentioned in connection with several (religious and social) organizations. I think the we should give some opportunity to let the article be improved with some WP:RSes. He also seems to lead an organization that has created hospitals in India. I've been hard pressed to find any news articles on him other than this which looks like an editorial/opinion piece of some sort. If more reliable sources can be found, then the article might merit inclusion. --vi5in^[talk] 15:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Changing to Keep. As the sources show below, he is definitely notable. However, the sources need to be examined to see if they meet WP:RS. --vi5in^[talk] 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Changed my opinion to Kill with fire. see the reason. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Closing admin's notice: All references below are not independent of the subject. Many of them doesn't even saying about him. It is more or less lying. This swami is only notable for his rape of a fellow follower. It seems User:Vivin is trying to mislead participants getting more favourite votes for keep. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't say I'm trying to mislead people. I've stated my opinion and provided my reasons for doing so. I have no vested interest in this article I don't want to get involved in a pissing match. I'm not going to respond to anything unrelated to this discussion from now on. --vi5in^[talk] 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• noticeThere could be a simple case of misunderstanding on what is notable and what is reliable. Just because someone is notable and a disciple of some guru, that does not make that guru notable. In all the sources I have seen he is mentioned, not as a leader, head of something but as guru - there are thousands gurus, how does it make him notable? If he was 'actually' what you say about him, you will see many articles about HIM personally, not just about his friends who happen to mention his name (that appears to be written differently every time). Show us ONE reliable source that state: Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj is supreme acharya of this age, called supreme among jagatgurus. One link to a reliable source stating this simple fact will clear it up. So far its just an ad. You of course should understand that Archives of Kashi Vidvat Parishat, Kashi, India is not WP:RS. None of the sources, even TV ones checks out. So far nothing checks out to prove him what the article claims, except that he is a guru, which in itself not WP:NOTE. Maybe if the article is deleted, it can be created again, this time using what is actually WP:RS. I mean one link to New York Times or Indian Times article supporting the claims will do for me. Wikidās ॐ 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:*Agreed. He is not my Guru... I support a quick and speedy deletion. 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

--- I would suggest the following:

• It resembles a fan site. Tagged since April 2008. -

remove honorifics, move it to Swami Kripalu Ji with explanation that he also is using honorifics.

• Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since April 2008. Somehow it was deleted

write less about his titles and more about what he said and what was 'exactly' said about him in the above list of references (some of them can be reliable, I did not check all). Academic sources and major newspapers are preferential, see WP:RS.

• It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since April 2008.

As long as you actually link every paragraph to relevant WP:RS there should be no dispute.

• It may violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Tagged since April 2008.

Controversial material should be ONLY reliable sources, no your own words or quotes without RS.

• It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since April 2008.

Its mainly because the tone. One also needs to address the issue of completely original spelling. Such as Krishn instead of Krishna, Jeev instead of Jiva - wikilink them to the articles.

• It reads like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tagged since April 2008.

Tone it down, comparing him to Vallabhacharya or Ramanujacharya should be (if at all) done in a neutral tone, even if his is your guru.

• It describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style that may require cleanup. Tagged since April 2008.

His philosophy should be referenced and linked to relevant pages and/or have proper references. He did not create it - but it appears he did.

• It is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to NPOV policy.

Remove the items that are partial and keep it in a sober encyclopedia tone.

• It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since April 2008.

Remove references from his own books that support claims that are not supported by other evidence.

These are my suggestions as far as the article. I have not changed my opinion on the article as it stands. Wikidās ॐ 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly notability has been shown. The newspaper articles quoted mostly predate the allegations. Otherwise, the article is sourced correctly. I am confused why this issue is even being discussed. 86.45.206.161 (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• 'note Found some evidence of notability, mainly due to rape publicity. I do not believe that he was ever proven guilty, but there is a lot of media about it, and I do not think that at 85 he 'can' rape, so that is notable. I have changed to weak keep, based on that and some of book references and that the article should be moved to 'Kripaluji Maharaj' - Jagatguru is a title and makes it hard to find notable reference in google if run by it, mainly fan sites, it should be explained in the article and redirect will work fine. Wikidās ॐ 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone submit your vote (YES or NO) for a deletion: 205.240.11.90 (talk)

Yes. 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. 86.40.196.166 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. His name may be mentioned here and there, not enough to warrant wikipedia notability though. I haven't heard of him. 74.85.13.51 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AfDs are not votes. You must provide policy and guideline-based rationales for your opinions. Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete Non notable individual. Also, sources very questionable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable. It is difficult to know this guy's name from the article entry, as two of the four words are honorifics and/or titles, and even the links point to several different names for him. If he is notable, let's start with what is actual name is, not his titles. It may be that independent sources can be found that support notability, but several different searches in university databases under "philosophy and religion" and "quick search" yield no hits. I'm prepared to change my opinion, but I'd need a real name. Presidents, prime ministers, senators, etc. are listed under their own names - not their titles. I'm not saying he's not a great guy with a bunch of followers. There's a local rabbi who has been the leader of the congregation since 1978, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page. He is well-respected, a great guy, smart, accomplished...and no wikipedia article. He's just not sufficiently notable...and the same applies to the article referenced in this AfD. In response to the box at the top of this article, I was not solicited to view this page; it's on the list of the 10 oldest AfD articles.  Frank  |  talk  00:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, personally i have heard of him. My only concern is that he appears to go by many different names by different people, even in the links on the page. If there are pages in other languages (like hindi) that clear up this confusion, there should be an article in the Hindi wikipedia. My conclusion: delete for now, but of course if someone else can come up with a reliable article later on, they can contribute. And no, i wasnt solicited to say this. 38.99.101.180 (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2008 (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.