Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidhoji Rao Shitole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Speedy keep, per my comment at the bottom. Stifle (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidhoji Rao Shitole

This page already exists under the name Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. Wikipedia manual of style states that biography should be under most common name Ghits: 20 vs. 2580. This page was created by another user who is in a dispute on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath discussion page, who is changing the redirects to that page, so that they come here. Admins have already put their two cents in on that pages discussion, that since that name gets the most Ghits, that's where the biography should be placed. Also, that article was up for deletion twice and was kept both times. Hamsacharya dan 19:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect and protect, if necessary. Then you can have your POV wars on one page, not two. We do not have separate pages for Lew Alcindor and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. The original name redirects to the one currently used. Fan1967 21:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath to this page. This page is a more appropriate bio by Wikipedia standards. (Disclosure: I did not create this page). —Hanuman Das 22:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC) / 66.68.112.85 03:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm not making any accusations, but the creator of this page has zero edit history outside this article and attempting to redirect the other one here. This whole issue has been full of sockpuppets in the past. Fan1967 22:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - well, you are probably right that it is a sockpuppet. It simply isn't my sockpuppet. Perhaps User:NoToFrauds has found some way to evade his block? —Hanuman Das 22:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment What wikipedia standards? Can you be more specific and cite your reference to wikipedia standards? See the wikipedia manual of style [1]. Furthermore, all of the spiritual biographies I've seen have come under the title of the subject, not his/her birth name. Tenzin Gyatso doesn't count because he is the 14th person to receive that title - it is not specifically his title. It is very disrespectful to put it under his birth name - not to mention weak with respect to Ghits 20 vs. 2580. By your rationale, there should be redirection to, and disambiguation for your guru Lawrence Miles Shri Gurudev Mahendranath -- Hamsacharya dan 08:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath to this page per Hanuman Das. ---Baba Louis 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC) / 209.221.144.226 23:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and protect the redirect. But this should not be at AFD. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment This is part of a long, ongoing fight, that should be a Request for Arbitration. Fan1967 01:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per Hamsacharya Dan's expressed view above. Sri Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is the name/title by which the individual is most known in the general public, particularly in cyberspace. Other noteable individuals that are not listed by their birth name are James Marshall Hendrix who is rightfully put under Jimi Hendrix - in this case there being no redirect at all from his birth name even. Same for James Douglas Morrison who is listed under Jim Morrison with no redirect from his birth name. Same for Sun Ra. Also, interesting to note that Pope John Paul and the whole Pope lineage is listed under their title and not their birthname. Why is it not the same for the HH the 14th Dalai Lama who is unfairly listed under His birthname? It shows an ingrained bias within Wikipedia definitely.213.106.1.25 21:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath
    Comment. Bad example. Pope John Paul is a disambiguation page that leads to two different people. Similarly, Dalai Lama refers to 14 different people, just as Pope refers to dozens. As for the current fight, it is not part of a "Wikipedia bias". It is a part of an ongoing fight between people who like and dislike this person. Fan1967 00:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Good example. Correct it leads to two individuals one being Pope John Paul 1 and Pope John Paul 2 and there are mentions of 23 and 6. ALL still listed under their title and not their birthname. 'Bias' that appears on Wikipedia is 'Wikipedia bias' because it is a free encyclopedia, my dear. So an ongoing fight between people who dislike and like a person is not connected to bias or POV, is it? Look Beyond and See the Light...Hari OM217.34.121.233 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath
Comment Popes are not listed under their title, my dear. Their title is Pope. They are listed under the name they have chosen, a convention that's almost always used in Wikipedia, for everybody. Dalai Lama is a title, not a name. Fan1967 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath to this page per Hanuman Das.--Chai Walla 06:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)--216.39.162.241 06:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I'm an editor, perhaps should say attempted editor of the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article. In truth I can't say that I "dislike" the subject as the subject has a host of very fine qualities and is a very good yogi. At the same time, I have specific problems with what I consider "mythologies" associated with the subject and greater problems with more than one editor who espouse a POV and approach to editing which I believe to be in disregard of Wikipedia policy. The Sidhoji Rao Shitole article is superior to the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article because it is NPOV. This is why I support Keep and redirect.--Chai Walla 06:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment That is a content dispute, not a dispute regarding the present issue - what is the appropriate article for this subject. Paramhansa Yogananda, Sri Yukteswar, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, etc etc are all under their titles, not their birth names. The only example Hanuman Das is bringing up is Tenzin Gyatso - the 14th Dalai lama. But the Dalai Lama is a title that is handed down through the generations to different people, so it makes sense to put his biography under his given name rather than a generalized title. Hamsacharya dan 07:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, yup, and it is User:Hamsacharya dan that has twice brought this dispute to AfD since the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article passed its first AfD. —Hanuman Das 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Hamsacharya dan said "Admins have already put their two cents in on that pages discussion, that since that name gets the most Ghits, that's where the biography should be placed." As far as I know, this is not true. Please cite a diff where an admin made some sort of official statement about this. The page move failed due to lack of concensus and no other reason. —Hanuman Das 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Partially in response to this talk page message, partially because of the fact that the nominator's request is to move/rename, not to delete, and partially because there have been no valid delete votes (anons do not count), I am closing this as a speedy keep. The naming dispute can, and should, be taken to WP:RFC. (Not WP:RFAR, who don't handle content disputes.) Stifle (talk) 22:44, 8 May 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.