Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

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 KEEP. -Doc ask? 11:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Full of original research, many sources are unverifiable, doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Furthermore, constant edit warring. Constant problems without resolution. Level of notability doesn't merit this activity. I wrote the bulk of this article and previously fought to keep it. There will never be an objective version in current condition as all editors (for and against) are too biased and too polarized. Hamsacharya dan 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)c

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Comment This notice added by 999 (talk · contribs), a suspected sockpuppet of Adityanath/Chai Walla/Baba Louis. Hamsacharya dan 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE BENE: All the anonymous voters are suspected sockpuppets of User:Hamsacharya dan ---Baba Louis 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You have all the IP addresses - why don't you do a WHOIS lookup? I've done so - and they're from all over the world. Nice try Baba Louis, but the only confirmed sockpuppets are your own. Hamsacharya dan 19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Read the WP:SOCK page Dan. For policy purposes, meatpuppets are considered the same as sockpuppets. And anonymous users from "all over the world" who only showed up to vote but have not edited WP prior to voting don't get counted. ---Baba Louis 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I know what a meatpuppet is Baba Louis. And if you're going to make accusations, you better substantiate them. So far the only policy violations I've been marked with are 3RR for dealing with your nonsense. You on the other hand are a confirmed sockpuppet. How you have the gall to come on here and start throwing around accusations is beyond me. Hamsacharya dan 20:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per my nomination. I don't know if I need to do this, but just in case. Hamsacharya dan 16:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Recently discussed with a vote to keep - see Archive 1. -- RHaworth 19:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment First time around was nominated for deletion by our very own Baba Louis. If this isn't proof positive of the incessant edit warring and inability to come to resolution, I don't know what is. Hamsacharya dan 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 68.127.175.116 18:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Didn't this just go through an AfD about two weeks ago? Edit wars are not a valid reason for deletion. Fan1967 18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fan1967. -- RHaworth 19:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Silentswan 19:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User's first edit. {{unsigned|999))
  • Keep, just went through an AfD recently and it was voted to keep it then too. ---Baba Louis 03:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Baba Louis is a confirmed sockpuppet per WP:RCU of another voter - Chai Walla [1] Hamsacharya dan 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Hi HD. Yes, I Chai Walla, once used the same laptop as Baba Louis to edit an article while on the road. No we are not the same person. This has already been explained to you. I am no sockpuppet. You fought to keep this article a couple of weeks ago. Something has changed. If you want to enlist the support of people for your amazing "about face" on the fate of this subject, I would suggest that you pour out your reasoning on the discussion page as per WP policy. I have no clue where you are coming from and I suspect others are in the same boat or flotation device. You rarely explain yourself or your edits and this is in my opinion the main reason there are conflicts between the editors on this subject. You constantly scream "sockpuppet", but in reality many wonder if the shoe isn't on the other foot, so to speak.-Chai Walla 07:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 61.1.113.72 04:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 203.200.99.67 05:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy keep please it satisfies the bio page Yuckfoo 06:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I also recall the recent AFD on which I expressed no preference but noted the edit warring. As that was kept, there seems to be no reason to change now. MLA 09:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 66.117.147.56 21:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 125.23.20.131 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 86.10.229.248 22:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep looks like a perfectly fine bio to me. Ekajati 22:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That doesn't address the issue of edit warring. It looks fine because we've been removing the original research. But it keeps coming back Hamsacharya dan 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirant jones (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. This AFD is full of sockpuppets!--Adam (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Holy mother of sockpuppets! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 136.182.2.222 22:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And per talk page. Kalagni Nath 00:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Shiv leela 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User has only 4 edits.
  • Delete per nom. 59.144.178.255 07:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User's first edit.
  • Keep Maybe this page needs to be referred to an administrator Patrolling the ocean called Wikipedia|Tell me about vandals, violations and more... 07:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 212.188.244.101 12:37, 11 April 2006(UTC)
    • User's first edit.
  • Keep - previously AfDed with a vote to keep. There's a whole raftful of meatpuppets here!!! -999 14:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment 999 (talk · contribs) only has 3 edits this year before April 3. You might want to consult with WP:BITE before making accusations. Why are you only interested in creating or voting in AfD's for articles written by me? Why did you appear exactly when Adityanath disappeared? Likely a sockpuppet of Adityanath/Baba Louis/Chai Walla [2] Hamsacharya dan 17:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 59.94.244.239 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.151.241.186 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per very recent AfD; AfD is not the terminal solution for content disputes. And note to whoever: stop the sockpuppetry. It fools no-one. Sandstein 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete ... and I'm no sockpuppet. This is, however, an article of questionable merit, and the author himself is the nom, claiming it to be original research and unverifiable. I suggest we take his perspective at face value. RGTraynor 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - while HD may be the original author, there have been at least 5 other editors working on the article. At least one other editor is on the pro side with HD. The article as it stood in my last version is completely cited. All questionable references had been removed per the NPOV dispute on the talk page. So this is NOT the case of an author asking for his own article to be deleted. ---Baba Louis 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - three of which are confirmed sockpuppets, including yourself, and still yet to be vindicated despite clamorings to the otherwise. [3]. Previously you nominated this article for deletion. Why the sudden change of heart? Hamsacharya dan 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - it's rather hard to be a sockpuppet of someone who has left Wikipedia - or hadn't you noticed that you and your buddies chased Adityanath off WP? And since the other user you mistakenly think I am has not voted, there is no violation of WP policy. CW & I are still not the same person, however, regardless of what you think. ---Baba Louis 22:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - what is this, another laughable attempt at deception? Try him at his new username Hanuman Das (talk · contribs) - Sysop Gator (talk · contribs) witnessed the whole thing. Hamsacharya dan 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment so now you're stalking him? Nicely obsessive, like all your other interactions on WP. ---Baba Louis 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment-The subject of this page is a known personality, published author and alleged Guru to quite a number of people. In this sense there is valid cause for a page on this subject. That the subject has made claims which cannot be substantiated is another issue. This issue is best sorted out by discussion among the editors in line with WP policy as to the specific points and merits for inclusion, exclusion or conflicting views. This page was recently voted keep in a recent AfD. Why delete it now?-Chai Walla 05:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per RGTraynor. -- Speedygonzalous 03:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep-Chai Walla 05:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Chai Walla is a confirmed sockpuppet per WP:RCU of another voter - Baba Louis [4] Hamsacharya dan 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Hamsacharya dan, I am a sockpuppet in your dreams, only. I wonder what most of the Admins think of the unsigned Deletes without comment? Sheesh Kabob and give us all a break-Chai Walla 08:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 62.129.121.63 09:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.136.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete per nom.
Note The three delete votes above were all entered by 82.151.241.186 (talk · contribs). Fan1967 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Note I've stricken out these copycat votes to make clear that they should be invalidated. It seems like the proper thing to do. If that is incorrect policy, my apologies. Hamsacharya dan 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment In a thread like this one, where so many of the votes are so dubious, I don't think it matters. They weren't going to count for anything anyway. Fan1967 03:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.177.73 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Better to see as honest a representation from the movement/mission/group/sect/body themselves217.34.121.233 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath
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.