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. -- Jreferee t/c 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Parthasarathy Rajagopal Chari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unreadable promotional piece, essentially unreferenced, by a user with no other contributions. Biruitorul 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-sense, hoax?, coi, fails bio. --Victor falk 10:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE *** FIX AND KEEP

This article was obviously written by a "fan" of Parthasarathy Rajagopala Chari who put this in as a "PROMOTION" of the system called Sahaj Marg which allegedly (by the Family of the Founder), Chari took over with "forged letter of Succession". I am now showing the Court Cases. Another editor added something about the cases now in Supreme Court of India, cases which are still pending. This now needs an "independent" arbitration mechanism to show the current information and remove the promo and "biased" statements.

This article should then be "Locked" until the case is resolve in court about who is the PRESIDENT OF SHRI RAM CHANDRA MISSION and is this person, Chari as well as being the Master of the SAHAJ MARG LINEAGE through Lalaji and Babuji? etc....

To simply delete is not courageous, innovative or "encyclopedic" and does not promote WIKIpedia as it admits that it simply does not cover articles on "pending" material, which means any current controversial Material. There is already a group who's goal is to "eliminate" controversial material around INDIA called the India Project. I am sure there are other "cabals" at work on and inside WIKI (religions, nationalists). They should also be "DEALT WITH".

Some "at arm's length" Admin should get involved and SHOW THE VALUE OF WIKIPEDIA. Someone who is not a DELETE-er and "GIVE-UP-ski". Show how WIKI is a more than a "HOAX" platform, at the mercy of "delete" artists.

4d-don--don 23:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Let's keep the excess verbiage to a minimum: how is this character notable, how do we know it, and how could anyone tell, given the atrocious quality of the prose? Biruitorul 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Needs a rewrite, but might be OK afterwards. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 ^{My Talk} _{Sign Here!} 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE page can be fixed. It has just been started.--Loorena 06:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Loorena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Biruitorul 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And anyway, we've had the page for two and a half months. Why exactly should we be keeping it? Biruitorul 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WHY KEEP ANY ARTICLE? Because we beleive in the encyclopedic value of WIKI and its ability to present a "dynamic" but accurate source of INFORMATION on a topic, event or person, even a "CONTROVERSIAL" one such as one with allegations of "TAKE-OVER" of a small Meditation group by another group such as the SRCM. The family of the Founder is presently in court trying to get their SRCM back from the alleged "usurpers". WIll WIKI be only for "non-controversial" topics? I just recently (odd spelling of the name) found this article and will not leave it promote one side or the other of the topic but will try and make it a "balanced" temporary article even though one FACTION (SRCM Chennai) does not want the "information" to get out...The other three recent (of many) schisms in this group want the information to "GET OUT" and not remain hidden. They also support the "do not delete" but have given up on WIKI to be fair and not simply "DELETE" at the whim of some cabal and some "biased" admins (meditators or disciples of other MASTERS or members of the INDIA PROJECT)

I will not edit this article until the "delete" listing is removed as it is a waste of TIME!!

Don--don 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment seems premised on the notion that all court cases deserve encyclopedia articles. They don't, and no evidence has been shown that this one does, or that it's relevant to anyone outside the parties themselves and their narrow circle. Biruitorul 23:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The correct spelling seems to be Parthasarathy Rajagopalachari, but most of the search results are blogs and trivial mentions. utcursch | talk 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 18:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every "EXPOSE" of a controversial topic that "includes" court cases with properly referenced information (such as a court of law), according to WIKI, does not deserve a "delete" because there is a court case pending...the original article(by a disciple of the GURU) should be "referenced" to Chari's autobiography if it is kept at all...The book is published by SRCM Publishing. This is not a "narrow" circle. Nationalists in many countries are reading about this "invasion" of Indian Gurus (75,000 of them) and their religions, searching for "cash-rich" markets in the WEST...Is it WIKI to chose what is "important" to the global READERS by a few admins? If that article can be made to adhere to the WIKI criteria, the article should stay...NO CENSURESHIP by a few deleting Fanatics. I agree on the spelling "oddity". Don--don 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Again, do cut down the verbiage: pending court cases are not inherently notable, and that's that. Of course, I can't even tell what this one is really about, given the sub-literate English it's written in. Biruitorul 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as violating every rule of WP:BLP. Bearian 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pls delete the article as it violates WP:BLP. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm forced to agree that the article has WP:BLP violations severe enough to warrant deletion. No objection to the recreation of a properly sourced, neutral article that avoids such problems. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:40, 19 October 2007 (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.