Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishitao Reiki

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 was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vishitao Reiki

Vishitao Reiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Violates WP:NOT (how-to guide), WP:NOR (no sources) and looks to be a spammish essay. Author is also inserting similar spam into Past life and Pastlife. JuJube 23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did those who know the subjects vote?

I am sorry to say that again the persons not knowing a certain subject are objecting the presence of some pages. In fact more and more new subjects giving scholarly research must be added to wikipedia to enrich it. But it is not happening. I will be happy if the articles Kriya Reiki as well as Vishitao Reiki are retained and I am given a fortnight's time to edit it and bring it to your standards after your experts give suggestions about changes.

I am a writer with more than 20 books published over last decade and about 6 of them are still doing well in market. So, I am well aware of the language requirements of publishing media. So, Please be sure that the information in the articles IS meeting standards of the subject.

As far as the format of your site is concerned, I am open to changes. But deletion means killing new authors!!!

  • Retain

[edit] I would love to have suggestions about desired changes

I know that this is an article on a totally different subject, but that must not be the cause of deletion. I wish to share this knowledge with all. Also, there are many who wish to get this info, but are not conversant with ways to vote and so on.

Can I know how I can edit the article so that it meets the requirements of the site?

Being a writer, I am aware of the norms of publishing and media. So, if any section of the article is violating these norms according to you, pl. let me know. So that I can Improve.

Rekhaa Kale 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. How-to guide, unsourced, no notability, not even sure what this is. —Ocatecir Talk 10:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete claims that this is somehow "scholarly research" are offensive bunk. This is nothing but original research and Wikipedia is absolutely not a forum for you to promote your latest crank theory. This article should be deleted because it has absolutely no sources and is completely unverifiable Gwernol 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete per Ocatecir, without prejudice against recreation if it demonstrates notability and provides verifiable and reputable sources. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:56, 28 March 2007 (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.