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 per consensus of established editors. --Core desat 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudeva Vagish Shastri[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD-A7, but declined as contains an assertion if notability of you look very carefully - that the guy created a yoga technique. There is no assertion of notability for the yoga technique that I can see, so I'd like community input on the entire article. Originally created at Vagyoga, moved to title claimed by article intro. My opinion is reserved. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is sourced only by self-published material as far as I can see. Claim of notability is not supported by any clear evidence. Also, I just looked at the status of the references and not only are they improperly formatted, it is not clear how some of them support the claims. Sarlo's Guru Rating Service doesn't look like a WP:RS to me. The Guru Rating Service fowarded me to an angelfire site selling workshops. I read the article trying to figure out what the actual novel claims were regarding "Vagyoga" and honestly could not figure out which sentences related to this particular method and what sentences were generic statements regarding yoga, etc. Since some of the statements are very general and could apply to many yoga topics, some of the references appear to be irrelevant to the specific issue of Vagyoga and Vagish Shastri (the honorific "Gurudeva" means "Divine Teacher"). The picture on the page of the Devanagari sound system looks pretty much like every other such chart I've seen, and the generic comments about Kundalini, etc. are not noteworthy. A Google search for "Gurudeva Vagish Shastri" gets only nine hits, not very impressive for even the most obscure guru. Since the claim is that there is a significant new method for teaching Sanskrit, I searched Amazon to try to find the books to perhaps add to my collection of such things, and while it is out of print I did find Pop Star Madonna's Master Dr. Vagish Shastri's Vagyoga ; Mnemonic Sanskrit, suggesting that the truly notable claim here may be an assertion that Madonna endorses this method of Sanskrit instruction. Buddhipriya 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article seems more to laud skill than provide insight into its scientific nature and merits. Seems like an advertisement the way it is written. Seems to only mention positives. ZaydHammoudeh 07:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page was created for Vagyoga. Firstly this page is not for Gurudeva Vagish Shastri. But it concentrates on his invented technique.
Vagyoga is a newly emerged technique of Sanskrit grammer which has its applications in Yoga and Kundalini Meditation. Its follower belong to all over the world. So why this new technique br ignored ? --Vagyoga 06:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that I have refactored this page for readability. Note also that the article has been moved to Vagyoga but that the author has nominated it for deletion here REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 07:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is a great teacher, with very heavy weight academic credentials. He is the former head of the Sanskrit dept. at Sanskrit University in Varanasi. I think this material is valid. Pam Strayer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.195.245 (talk • contribs)
Delete as above. Anwar 14:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To my point of view this page has relevant information. Therefore it should be retained here. Chaman Lal--59.95.107.85 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant information is not a criteria for inclusion. See WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. 202.54.176.11 10:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is clear that some form of either sock- or meat-puppets are at work here, which suggests bad faith on the part of the proponent of the article. Look at contribution histories: [1] [2] Buddhipriya 06:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - blatant advertising and probable COI at work here! --Orange Mike 13:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. It may have been created by a practitioner or vendor of this technique, but it does have very interesting information about a subject that I personally know very little about. It's got references, links, sources, and everything else an article needs. --Darth Borehd 01:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam, and no potential to become otherwise. —Cryptic 01:31, 7 April 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.