Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya Visuddh Sagar ji Maharaj


 * 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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination, and consensus indicates the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Acharya Visuddh Sagar ji Maharaj

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The creator of this article is determined to push it into mainspace. They have redirected a draft version to the mainspace article, and when I moved the mainspace article back to draft today, the creator had moved it back. The topic is very likely to be notable but the sourcing is not adequate. Without reliable independent sources the article can’t stay in mainspace, so here we are. Mccapra (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable monk.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It is always problematic for new page reviewers, when the creator of an article is determined to push it to the mainspace, irrespective of what it will cost., if you encounter problems such as this again in the future, try contacting me on my talkpage, let me move it back without leaving a redirect, Best.— Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 17:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Article about a non-notable subject that fails WP:GNG.— Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 17:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Vishuddhasagar. Meets WP:GNG per Per WP:NEXIST, non-English sources are acceptable. Note that I cited Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar which are reliable sources. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and move' per above. While cleanup is in order, the subject is indeed notable. NavjotSR (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you thank you for finding those. Of the five you point out, 1 and 4 are the same thing, and I’m going to assume that 2 isn’t independent. Anyway that means there are three reports in mainstream media that may confirm the subject’s notability. My proposal then is to add those references to the article and to remove information in it at the moment which doesn’t have good sources. Mccapra (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK I’ve done it now. The new sources are in to support notability. Unsourced material is out. I’ve kept the non-independent sources to support specific details of his life. This is what I wanted to do themselves in draft space. Just repeatedly pushing a badly-written article into mainspace when other editors are trying to get it developed as a draft is not a good way of working on Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per good work by Capankajsmilyo.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination. Mccapra (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.