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. One incident does not make someone notable, per WP:NOT#NEWS, and the sources are suspicious. (For the record, a correctly-formatted Google search for him returns only 37 hits, but that was not a factor in my assessment of consensus.) - KrakatoaKatie 04:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj

[edit]
Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
  • Comment If you changed your vote from Delete to Weak Keep due to this individual's criminal record, then I do not believe it is a worthy arguement. A person's criminal record and/or the accusations against them have little weight as there are many criminals and/or persons accused of crimes. Aside from this point, I believe that this individual is non notable and that the sources are very suspect. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Wikipedia articles are only for nice, pleasant people? Better get rid of the article on that Mr. Hitler fellow, then. You say he's a "notorious" rapist, which, if your statement is true, would ipso facto make him suitable for an article. "Hardly 10 ghits" - funny, I see a bit over 700. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a Strong and Speedy Deletion. Anyone disagree? 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to Delete. The common consensus is that the page isnt suitable for an encyclopaedia and that its sort of an advertisement. There are some minor references but they leave alot of primary issues unanswered. I have some Hindi news articles but they are not online. We should consider the suggestion of starting an article in the hindi language section? 74.85.13.60 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

74.85.13.60 (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting your edits. Dont remove AfD tag until the discussion is over. That's our policy. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's notice: All references below are not independent of the subject. Many of them doesn't even saying about him. It is more or less lying. This swami is only notable for his rape of a fellow follower. It seems User:Vivin is trying to mislead participants getting more favourite votes for keep. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't say I'm trying to mislead people. I've stated my opinion and provided my reasons for doing so. I have no vested interest in this article I don't want to get involved in a pissing match. I'm not going to respond to anything unrelated to this discussion from now on. --vi5in[talk] 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


--- I would suggest the following:

remove honorifics, move it to Swami Kripalu Ji with explanation that he also is using honorifics.
write less about his titles and more about what he said and what was 'exactly' said about him in the above list of references (some of them can be reliable, I did not check all). Academic sources and major newspapers are preferential, see WP:RS.
As long as you actually link every paragraph to relevant WP:RS there should be no dispute.
Controversial material should be ONLY reliable sources, no your own words or quotes without RS.
Its mainly because the tone. One also needs to address the issue of completely original spelling. Such as Krishn instead of Krishna, Jeev instead of Jiva - wikilink them to the articles.
Tone it down, comparing him to Vallabhacharya or Ramanujacharya should be (if at all) done in a neutral tone, even if his is your guru.
His philosophy should be referenced and linked to relevant pages and/or have proper references. He did not create it - but it appears he did.
Remove the items that are partial and keep it in a sober encyclopedia tone.
Remove references from his own books that support claims that are not supported by other evidence.

These are my suggestions as far as the article. I have not changed my opinion on the article as it stands. Wikidās ॐ 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. 86.40.196.166 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. His name may be mentioned here and there, not enough to warrant wikipedia notability though. I haven't heard of him. 74.85.13.51 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are not votes. You must provide policy and guideline-based rationales for your opinions. Corvus cornixtalk 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
More