Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddha Guru Sri Alakh Puriji
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Almost patent (religious?) nonsense; by reading the article I get no sense as to whether this "immortal" person is real or mythical; I suspect the author meant real. The google test yields less than 10 hits for this name. Amahabal 00:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This is probably a delete just because it's pretty obscure but I don't see any reason to dismiss it as nonsense (at least no more so than any other religious idea). The belief that there are immortal rishis living for hundreds of years in the Himalayas is not uncommon in India. --Lee Hunter 01:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I have trouble understanding it, and it certainly needs NPOVing, but it seems like a valid religious topic. You wouldn't necessarily expect something like this to show up much on Google. Everyking 05:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: it is linked to Sri Deep Narayan Mahaprabhuji, the deletion of which was voted upon a few weeks ago (with a final decision to keep). The articles belong to a series of interlinked yoga-related articles mainly by User:Mansukram. In the votation on the other article, User:Utcursch wrote: "I am an Indian and I don't think this person needs a mention in Wikipedia. I would strongly recommend that other articles on swamis and yogis by User:Mansukram be deleted. Don't vote keep, simply because they are well-written or non-stub. Ask some Indians [...]; they know that these yogis are not really notable." On the other hand, in a country with a population almost the size of those of Europe and North America put together, even things notable to a small subset of the population may be regarded as notable enough for an encyclopedia with the scope of Wikipedia. However, all these articles need a clearer context and some kind of categorizing. / up land 07:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. For one thing, this article is a verbatim quote of a page on www.yotor.com [1], and the other articles in the series may well be also. yotor.com isn't cited in the article. That makes this a copy vio. Google turns up 1 hit on the full name of this guru, and only 19 on the phrase "Alakh Puriji", several of which are links to Wikipedia or its mirrors, and the rest to yotor.com and a couple of other bizarre sites, including another wiki. I don't think these gurus and swamis are notable, even in India, especially with the comment from User:Utcursch quoted above. Finally, the article (like the others in the series) is very poorly written, verging on being nonsense, and I doubt there is enough interest in these gurus that these articles will get cleaned up any time soon. So this just ends up being more crud in the Wikipedia. Delete this article and the others, and if these swamis and gurus are notable, someone else will come along and write a good, sourced, article eventually. But I doubt they are notable. --BM 17:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually it is not a copyvio – that page is a Wikipedia mirror. / up land 20:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for copyvio and lack of sourcing. Katefan0 20:01, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable - fails Google test (less than 30 hits), possible copyright violation, Wikipedia is not a mirror. Megan1967 00:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As I already pointed out above, there is no evidence of a copyvio in this case. And what does "Wikipedia is not a mirror" mean? There may possibly be good reasons to delete this (and presumably all the other articles in the series), but votes should not be based on false or unproven assumptions. / up land 07:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You are right. yotor.com is a Wikipedia mirror. Sorry to have caused confusion. I should have noticed. Darn Wikipedia mirrors all over the place. No change of vote, though. --BM 01:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As I already pointed out above, there is no evidence of a copyvio in this case. And what does "Wikipedia is not a mirror" mean? There may possibly be good reasons to delete this (and presumably all the other articles in the series), but votes should not be based on false or unproven assumptions. / up land 07:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not-notable, possible copyvio. Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme Delete. Don't allow Wikipedia to turn into a platform for popularizing non-notable swamis and sadhus. There are thousands of them in India. Google returns Wikipedia mirrors. utcursch 05:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme Delete agree with Utcursh. This would be roughly akin to giving every minister or nun an encyclopedia entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
akin, but gurus have more to teach
- It seems written well enough to me, so the issue is significance, notabilty. Unless anyone can come up with hard evidence that this spirit/man has impacted significantly on local customs/Hinduism/Indians/the world, I would vote to delete. HowardB 06:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.