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 no consensus (I counted 3 deletes, 2 keeps, 2 non-votes, 2 uncounted comments). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005

Acharya S[edit]

Apparently an author in the field of comparative religion, but her "notable theories" are as about as groundbreaking as a plastic shovel in permafrost. Assertions of notability may be valid, but I don't know if the publication of a few pieces of "pulp academia" are worthy of inclusion. Tom Lillis 09:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be a great loss if there were not some article on Acharya S. She is an important figure in contemporary religious debate. The extent to which she has been a subject of often vituperative controversy is a measure of her significance. It is unfortunate that because of her controversial nature that she has been subject to treatments that are obvious hatchet jobs. To have no reference to her whatsoever, however, would do the curious reader, as well as the realm of religious polemic, a great disservice. The article should be improved, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjulka (talk • contribs)

Comments by Cjulka have been disregarded (user's only edit). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A point which is stated in both of her books. These observations have been made since the beginnings of christianity even by the church fathers themselves. That said, there is absolutely no reason to keep this piece on Wikipedia because it is nothing more than a defaming hit piece. -el Lobo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.31 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Another point: Bringing her child into all of this is about as low as it gets and if nothing else that should be erased immediately. It is obvious that much of this article is does little more than humiliate and disparage. -el Lobo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.31 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by "el Lobo" interpreted as delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005

• I concur with Lobo....erase the disparaging remarks represented by Zarov and while you are at it...delete him too. This person is not worthy of receiving ANY respect as an editor or "professional" writer, any more than a zoo monkey. If I sound disparaging of him, it is because he deserves it. Spreading information about her personal life is tantamount to the tactics of a "National Enquirer", not the professionalism of what claims to be an Encyclopaedia. She is a living breathing person and anyone should have her permission to say anything personal about her in a respectable forum such as Wikipedia claims to be. The last time I looked, the Acharya S. site as laid out looked reasonable enough, but apparently, the monkey is busy changing it. I might suspect he is a stalker, what with his fixation on the author. Rene/Skull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by "Rene/Skull" interpreted as delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005

• • Addendum: In light of the conspiracy under which this article was formed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alteripse#Acharya_S_2 and continues to present http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zarove and due to recent Wikipedia travails, removal of this article is imperitive to avoid more of the same. -el Lobo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.82 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur that this piece should be permanently deleted, on the grounds that it was written as a propaganda/hit piece by user:Zarove. In addition, others have colluded with this intent. User:Crazy Eddie (an admin?) writes that this is about what he can "get away with" in an effort to make the author "look like a nut". This is not good for the author, whose reputation is being deliberately tarnished, nor is it good for wikipedia. ^^James^^ 20:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ^^James^^ interpreted as delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005

• • What exactly is the problem with the article ? For someone who knows nothing about this person, it doesn't read too much like propaganda. She seems to have a decent number of google hits. Tintin 21:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it should be made clear that the article has been cleaned up to make it "fair" while this deletion process is going on, to give it the "best chance" for survival. So no, the current version does not reflect the last eight months, which included blatant factual inaccruacies, that were pointed out time and time again and were consistently ignored. It has been suggested to Zarove by an admin that he refrain from adding back the "unresolved issues" until after the deletion process is over. If I haven't misread... why is there need to present a whitewashed version during the deletion process if it wasn't understood to be unfair in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ^^James^^ (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Users should be aware that this article has been involved in an extensive edit war, accumulating more than 350 edits, many with acrimonious comments left in the edit summaries. The talk page has accumulated so much discussion that it has three archives. ◎DanMS 18:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by "DanMS" interpreted as a non-vote. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005

• Keep. As told in the above comments, it has been edited extensively and also by at least 5-6 notable wiki contributers. There are also many internet sites discussing this controversy.--Raghu 04:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm neither a member of the wiki community, nor of Acharya's list. I surfed in on a whim awhile back, it's been interesting to follow.

Perhaps Zarove isn't the best person to write the definitive version, since he appears to have an axe to grind. For the same reason, neither should anyone from Acharya's group.

To bemoan some "conspiracy" against her is to trivialize the word. The talkpage entries are there for the world to see. I'm currently conspiring to check my email, and will do so within the hour. Later this evening I've conspired to do some laundry.

Many criticisms of her work exist, in varying quality, and it's ludicrous to expect Wikipedia to wave them away with one token sentence and two links. Check out the wiki entries for L. Ron Hubbard, David Icke, Lyndon LaRouche, Mother Theresa even. (Granted, the neutrality of the Mother Theresa entry is in dispute. Apparently she's the victim of "malicious gossip.")

I don't think Zarove's final version was particularly hostile to her, although Zarove himself is. (It's not difficult to see how he might have gotten that way.) Points that were simply factual and emotionally neutral have been construed as attacks. Anyone who can't tell the difference is not up to the job of editing his work.

He's essentially correct in this: it's not about him. Pull him out of here, let someone else attempt a consensus version, and what will happen? Anything that doesn't function as a press release for Acharya S will be challenged by her followers until it does.

Or until Wikipedia tires of listening to them. Given its vindictive reputation--if the Church of Scientology can live with criticisms of L. Ron Hubbard, the church of Acharya S can do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.35.169 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 70.104.35.169 (talk · contribs) disregarded (user's only edit). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005

• • Comment. 12/11/05

The author of the above claims to have just come here on a whim being neither a "wikipedian" or a member of the "church of Acharya". The above person did not leave a username, so shall be named "dual personality", since they dont know the meaning of conspire! Dual (for short), has no idea of what is transpiring in this wikipedia "rumor-mongering' and "libellous" affair. Neither has "dual" taken the time to learn more about how others have been victimised in a personal way that has affected their reputations by lies posted here. Apparently "dual', apart from the condescending nature of the post, shall not be the one to develope a fair consensus, because said person has already made up their minds.

Zarove didnt become the way he is because of Acharya's defenders. He is simply that way by choice, spreading personal and defamatory information and otherwise being fixated in the manner of a stalker. He better take seriously what he is doing because it could end badly for him with legal force being set on his tail. He has made insinuating and downright threatening statements to the effect of getting more personal information on her. What has that to do with what should be a simple matter here at Wikipedia? He has the defense of being anonymous right now, but he will be found out and tracked for the statements he has made and has no business doing so. If the founder of Wikipedia does not take serious action about how things are done here, he could find his reputation and Wikipedia's going down the toilet.

I do not believe in censorship, but when it comes down to some nobody or anybody, hiding behind anonymity, failing to uphold expectations of quality with civilised behaviour and academic standards...they deserve the "boot". In the real world, a journalist or writer would interview the subject, do the research (supposing they have that capability) and address matters without prejudice. Zarov has clearly represented himself, NOT to have these high standards at all. Yes, this is about him, because he is the AUTHOR of the wikipedia site on Acharya. His bias and the strings to which he is attached are in question....just as the above "dual's" lack of understanding of the harm this forum has by unprofessional fruitcakes. In fact, I consider "dual's" blase attitude insulting. Rene/Skull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not going to vote at this point, but the accumulation of these rambling screeds shows something of the difficulty of keeping the page in line with NPOV. The page content relates to a small corner of a wider controversy. Charles Matthews 09:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Charles Matthews interpreted as non-vote. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005

• Keep: Acharya S is, from my POV, a notable kook, and on that basis deserves an article. If I am wrong, and she is not a kook, then she needs an article even more. I agree that both Zarove and the followers of Acharya have been very argumentative (very argumentative!), but that does not mean that a quality NPOV article can not be written. If anybody has a problem with individual contributors, then they should take out an RfC against them - not try to delete the article itself, just because you are unhappy with the current version.

Now that finals are over, I'm planning on investing some time and attempting to work out a suitable compromise that everyone can agree to. (The criticism section needs reworking - we have criticisms from three main primary sources, and Acharya was kind enough to write rebuttals. The criticism section needs to both better summarize the criticisms - with sources! - and provide summaries of those rebuttals. Zarove also wants a biography section - something I agree with in principle, although I am not happy with his current version.)

Yes, I am biased, and I freely admit to that. But I am also willing to work with my opposite numbers. And I might just be a bit more open minded than you think. And no, I am not an admin, I wouldn't take that job if you offered it to me. I'm just an experienced wikipedian. crazyeddie 19:19, 17 December 2005 (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.