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. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Nigamananda

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Fairly incoherent article about someone who seems to have been a guru who founded several ashrams. No evidence that he satisfies notability criteria and the article does not cite any reliable sources in support of its statements about his activities. Hopelessly POV. This search has only 428 results mostly irrelevant or referring to a previous WP article, Nigamananda, which was AFD'd for lack of sources and is probably about the same person. Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:SOAP andy (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable individual. There are no independent reliable sources that say this individual is notable. Thus, delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is a repost of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahansa Srimat Swami Nigamananda Saraswati Dev. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The deleted article is completely different from the present one in every way except the identity of its subject. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a re-post of yet another version, at Paramahansa Shree-Mad Swami Nigamananda Saraswati Deva, but that one didn't have an AFD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now hist-merged into the present version, as it was essentially a copy/paste move. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if notability as a religious figure could yet be established, the present article with its tone of a religious tract is so irredeemably unencyclopedic that it could not serve even as a first basis for a legitimate rewrite. It would have to be razed to the ground in order to be rebuilt as a neutral article, and until that happens, having no article will be better for the encyclopedia than having this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nilanchal 15:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Hi I herby answer your queries

1)Non-notable person.

You have not read His article properly. How you can say he is not notable ?. I have seen few simple article in Wikipedia as camper to them my article is more evidence and contain good reference. Swami Nigamananda has obtain perfection in 4 sadhanas i.e. Tantra,Gyan,Yoga & Prema (I already provided reference and proper evidence in my article), did you find any person or soul who had completed these 4 sadhanas at a time. Example : Adi Shankarchary is for only “Gyan” Sadhana similarly Maha Prabhu Gourang is famous for only “Prema” Sadhana. NO BODY IN THIS WORLD, UNIVERSE IS THERE EXPECT SWAMI NIGAMANANDA, WHO HAS COMPLETED FOUR SADHANA AT A TIME AND RETURNED SUCCESSFULLY FROM NIRIVIKALPA SAMADHI. Please think and answer properly.

2) He seems to have been a teacher who founded several ashrams but that's all.

How you can say he is teacher ? After studying this article you treat Swami Nigamanada as a teacher ? I request you understand this article first, read properly. He is a Sadguru not a teacher. Pls read article in Wikipedia. Who is Sadguru? and What is his capability? I will take this issue to Wikipedia's higher authority for a justices, because your this sentence cannot be acceptable.

3) The article does not cite any reliable sources in support of its statements about his activities.

Many article are available in Wikipedia, which contain less quantity of reference as camper to my article. I will take this issue legally to higher authority of Wikipedia. This article is created on holy day, 10th Year Wikipedia day please note.

Before that you have pointed that this article has multiple issue with following: 1) Peacock term 2) No sufficient reference 3) Grammatical error I have rectified all and you have agreed . I am very surprise again to receive the above message. Please do not play with us.

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE TILL PROPER JUSTICS I RECEIVED FROM HIGHER AUTHORITY (LEGAL DEPARTMENT) OF WIKIPEDIA.

NB: Meditate Swami Nigamananda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilanchalswara (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I am unqualified to comment on the subject's notability, this article takes the tone of a religious tract and does not display any objective quality. I would not know how to rewrite this entry. The article is so poorly written that rewriting it would be an exercise in futility. Having such an article on Wikipedia militates against the encyclopedia's credibility. I agree with the above comment that deleting this article, even if it is about a notable person, would be better for Wikipedia than having such a biased entry. Rotmo (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note There are still no reliable sources that state how this subject is notable. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2011 (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.