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 Keep, even ignoring the votes from disciples, there is no consensus to delete. Article should be watched for NPOV and spam. NawlinWiki 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurumaa[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 prodded and then tagged for WP:BIO. (Both were removed by article creator.) Also appears to possibly be spam. -WarthogDemon 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems impressive in its amount of hits and references. Don't fancy single-purpose creator accounts much, though. Greswik 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Also appears to be WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been established. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeilN (talk • contribs).
Weak Keep seems that there are some references, little spammy. Took the liberty of removing the 'Buy my books and CD links at the bottom of the page'. Montco 23:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does she know they drew on her face when she passed out? ~ Infrangible 16:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean and how does that apply to the discussion? -WarthogDemon 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's discussion page mentions sources to establish the notability. Thesatyakaam 07:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:BIO and WP:SPAM. Also the preceeding Keep comment seems to have been left by the article's creator (and topic?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saganaki- (talk • contribs).

Comment Why can't the creator of the article participate in the discssion? Thesatyakaam 09:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why to keep... i have read WP:BIO and WP:SPAM, i didn't find anything in the article violating the wikipedia policy, content is very informative and impressive. Smileria 09:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC) — Smileria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep. I don't see anything spammy about the article. Gurumaa is a famous pesonality and there should be an entry for her in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.0.158 (talk) — 122.160.0.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Must be there Anandmurti Gurumaa Ji is a revolutionary , world famous personality. She is working for so many noble causes in India and Helping millions in making their life celebration. This post should remain . Every thing stated is truth and we should help the good work to be there in this encyclopedia.Gurvinderonline25 09:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC) — Gurvinderonline25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Rewrite completely There are plenty of reliable sources (newspapers, mentioning the subject of the article) However, the tone still sounds like an advertisement, hence violates WP:SPAM, needs a thorough rewrite.--Kylohk 10:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has to be thereThe aforementioned comments are probably because of less information on each sub-topic and references to works(books and CD's).Gurumaa ji is an enigmatic mystic and there are many people who would want to know more about her.Since not many people can attend her meditation camps,for someone wishing to delve deeper into her philosophy and teachings the books and cassettes can be of enormous value.Mentioning her works thus,should not be taken as advertising,this is how gurumaaji can reach millions of people.The article does not ask you to purchase anything.You can simply listen to gurumaaji on television.So one can view it as advertising or simply as an effort to aid seekers.The article is thus neither a spam nor an advertisement.tripba 18:33, 22 july 2007. — tripba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment spam also includes pure promotional material, and promoting seems to be what this article is doing. -WarthogDemon 16:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is gem It is not to be just manipulated in terms of mere "data".. It is not a mere ad. It's not a promotional gimmick, not at all. It is just as any other great mystic's page, describing what its surrounding people can.. ""this page's deserving list should not contain deletion"" I hope people will try to understand. I know at first there will be resistance but I'm destined to see good and it'll be there(.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harinderdivine (talk • contribs) — Harinderdivine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep conditional on the article being rewritten to reflect what the sources say rather than what the subject would like it to say. There does seem to be some evidence of notability, but at the moment it's unreferenced and much of it borders on spam so delete if not improved. Iain99 17:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on recent edits. This version is just about OK, but edits like this one are pure promotion. Note that to comply with NPOV her teachings need to be clearly labelled as teachings, not described as fact. Iain99 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query How does a discussion for deletion concluded generally? Is there any time bound on that? As this is a new article, it should be given time for improvement... Users please point out what exactly is objectionable/unsourced in the article then it would be easier for the content contributors to improve upon that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.121.158 (talk • contribs).

Answer to query - The Afd discussions usually last 5 days or so. Please see WP:AFD for the complete info on the process. --Evb-wiki 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article edited refernces has been given from gurumaa's official website and other sources to make the article authentic. Let us know if you still see anything objectionable about the article. 59.176.121.158 09:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article is kept or deleted when an admin determines the consensus of the people's opinions. However, it should be noted that the usage of multiple single purpose accounts in order to support an opinion is frowned upon here. Hence there may be a chance that many of those comments above will not be taken into account. Also be aware that if an article is written like an ad, it might still be deleted, so better tidy it up more.--Kylohk 11:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete A mystic cannot be described by words. So there is bound to be some trouble in putting thoughts into words here. The creator of this article should be given a chance to modify the article, rather than just delete it thinking it is spam. There is no spam in it. It is an attempt to share information about a master, about her knowledge and meditation. Thats what it is aimed at doing. So the article should be given a fair chance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remoteuser (talk • contribs). — Remoteuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment As a neutral third party (I originally prodded the article but now believe some of it can be kept given the references) I am attempting to build consensus in order to remove the non-NPOV sections. --NeilN 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let me know which section seems likely to fall in non-NPOV. I will give more refrences for that or rewrite it to make it NPOV. --Thesatyakaam 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first issue was notability, we provided sources for that... then came refrences issue, we gave refrences also... now its NPOV issue, I am trying to fix this also... It would be great if other users can help us in improving the article rather than deleting it. Thesatyakaam 10:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - it still reads a bit spammy, though I just went and edited the article to clean things up a bit to make it less POV. Most of the footnotes seem to be from non-neutral sources - e.g., her website. I still suspect that this article is only here because her supporters want it here, and not because the subject has enough demonstrated outside notability. Still, when it comes to non-Western articles, I like to err on the side of caution, so I'll vote a borderline keep on this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:34, 26 July 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.