Talk:Nirmal Baba

Rewrite on September 28, 2020
The reasoning for this rewrite.

The subjects biggest claim to notability appears to be controversy he's attracted but some editors seem intent on leaving that out, should it defame him. Result was that it was unclear what he's actually known for. Unless there's some third party coverage that editors can agree on keeping, then the subject fails WP:ANYBIO by default. I do think that the subject probably should pass ANYBIO but not at the expense of having a POV-laden article littered with peacock terms, dead links and use of circular references. Hence a need to significantly rework the article. It was apparently important how old or recent the various criticisms of Nirmal Baba were, so I've tried to include specific dates wherever relevant and form a meaningful narrative. I also included an infobox for the most uncontroversial items. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the controversy table:
 * Where you have mentioned that he pays shills to people in order to speak; it is a false allegation which is also misleading as Samagam has always been an open event and same is being done on Facebook live every month globally, where people from any where from world can connect and speak. (Facebook page has 500K followers- https://www.facebook.com/nirmalbabaji/)
 * This thing was done by people with vested interest to defame. :User00011123 (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised either way if that particular allegation was proven to be true or false. But it's the fact that the allegation was made that is noteworthy and included in the article. If it were eventually proven either way, then that should be included too. Yeah, obviously the person(s) making the allegation has one agenda or the other but so does literally everyone, that is not a good reason to not report on what they've said. If we followed that logic, we'd be leaving out the subjects comments as well. Paul Carpenter (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

NOT HINDU
He is NOT hindu baba, he was sikh RashmikantT (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

He is not Hindu, he was from sikh community Plus u r removing additional info on him over and over not following it 106.66.202.85 (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  General Ization Talk  01:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Very short intro, NOT even projecting anything
He is godman, businessman, and self proclaimed god: these info should be included in intro plus he is notorious and/or, famous for his illogical absurd and simple solutions to problems that is the key for which India knows him that should be in intro. RashmikantT (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is not sufficiently detailed or long to warrant a lede that does more than explain the reason for the subject's notability. He is notable because of his activities as a "godman", or spiritual leader, in India. The lede already conveys this. More detailed information on his activities, the reception to them and criticism of them is already conveyed in the body of the article. There is no need to restate the same information in the lede. Please see WP:LEDE. Also, please see WP:NPOV, which explains that we must be very cautious in including criticism (or content that could be perceived as criticism) not readily cited to reliable sources. In no case should characterizations of our subjects be based on our own opinions or conjecture as Wikipedia editors.  General Ization  Talk  21:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

But criticism is well covered and he is notorious for simple, illogical and absurd solutions. The main thing or crux of the whole or what subject is currently doing should be in intro. RashmikantT (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So add the sentence "He is notorious for simple, illogical and absurd solutions" to the lede. Voila! The lede will be complete. Just make sure that there are citations in the body of the article of sources that support the assertion using exactly those words.  General Ization Talk  23:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article
There seems to be a conflict on the neutrality of the article. Please review the history and determine the edits. Also WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME are to be considered. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Biased article, lacks credibility
The article lacks both information and credibility. It is heavily influenced by a few youtube videos. Hence, it is a partial writeup. No efforts have been taken on the research of facts. The introduction paragraph is repeated in one of the subsequent paragraphs. The writer has done injustice to the topic. Its.dikshita (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)