Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/Archive1

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. Mailer Diablo 03:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

vanity page written by teacher in subject's school Baba Louis 05:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep (changed delete vote after reading discussion below) per Monicasdude and Priyanath (with addition of "cite sources" tag as ostensibly suggested by Adityanath. Joe 18:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ~Linuxerist L / T 07:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if the guy has a school than he is encyclopedic. 10:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems encyclopædic enough for me, assuming this isn't a hoax. Lankiveil 11:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
• Comment though I can't currently check all the relevant pages, there's been a bit of an edit war on this. I'll wait to see whether User:Fire Star comments MLA 11:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. This AfD is the product of religious dispute along apparently intractable sectarian lines. One side wants no mention of the person who is the subject of the article, the other (one editor, mostly), does. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath gets just shy of 1,000 Google hits. Let the community decide! --Fire Star 13:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, apaprently notable as published author. Probably should be a speedy keep, since vanity alone isn't grounds for deletion and no other grounds for deletion are cited, and notability hasn'd been denied/argued against in any of the delete comments. Monicasdude 13:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, please note that the publisher is a vanity press which only publishes books by or about the subject. AFAIK, there are no objective biographies of the subject. ---Baba Louis 14:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It does appear that this person has a following. It also appears that there is an ongoing dispute between supporters of this person and his opponents. I agree with Monicasdude that Speedy Keep may be warranted. Fan1967 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This person does have a following. The dispute is a religious and personal one. The article that keeps getting written by a follower is also a personal, POV, and vanity one. But that's a separate issue that needs to be dealt with, and not grounds for deletion.Priyanath 16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would also point out, intractable as it seems to me, that there has been some reasonable discussion and definite effort to work this out from both sides, too, as Priyanath's and Baba Louis's comments remind me. I think this AfD is a fine idea to jump start a consensus. --Fire Star 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. However, IMO, the article needs to stick to facts which are verifiable using independent sources and not just parrot the subject's unsupported claims using only his autobiography as a reference. —Adityanath 17:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I wrote the bulk of this article. I would like resolution to the conflict, and have made numerous attempts to initiate conflict resolution. There are two detractors of this article - User TroyVaughn, who is confirmed by Sysop jayjg (talk · contribs) to be a sockpuppet of NoToFrauds/82.15.17.152. He is not interested in a resolution (see diff). The other main detractor, who nominated this article for deletion, is also a confirmed sockpuppeter under the usernames Adityanath/Baba Louis/Chai Walla. In this way, they've built up a concensus of 6 against me in a few different articles. Hamsacharya dan 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Monicasdude AfD is not the appropriate venue for dealing with this article. Must be improved and contextualized, still needs dePOVification, but not delete material. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm hesitant to recommend any action in light of the ongoing edit war, but my main problem with the article is that I don't believe it establishes sufficient notability per WP:BIO. --Alan Au 20:37, 24 March 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.