Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaktababa


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bhaktababa

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is about a non-notable Indian saint with other non-notables (redlinks) for support. Net search shows the only other article is by the same user on Hindu Wiki, and there is some inherent COI/promotional intent. The name comes up as "...Bhakti. Baba..." excerpts in other transcripts but not supporting this person. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obviously. -- PS T  11:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hello to both of you, and Thank you specially Mr.Phil Bridger, for going through the article. I've tried to mention the notability of the Person as titled in Bhaktababa. And, as to the comment put forward by Ms. Rossi, I beg to mention the Bamdeva and famous saint Bamakhepa of Tarapith of West Bengal are the same. So, you may once research about Tarapith on the Internet, and may get something about Bamakhepa. Thank you both. Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)"
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: No reliable ref.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the method of referencing may leave something to be desired, it does cite references.  At this stage I can only assume in good faith that the references support the article, and I see nothing here that makes me suspect a hoax.  Obscure Hindu saints just "belong" as certainly as obscure Christian saints belong. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smerdis, at least until someone qualified in Hinduism reviews it. Lack of online references is insufficient justification for removal. –  7 4   18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Let's see if we can't get some reliable sources to establish what appears to be a notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless at least one reliable reference is found to establish notability before this AFD closes. I searched online and didn't find anything; the closest was this website of Badarikashrama (the name of the institution Bhaktababa supposedly founded) but this one has a different founder, and does not even mention Bhaktababa. None of the listed "references" in the article comply with WP:RS. Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article author left the following comment on the article talk page, which may help people looking for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC):
 * Weak keep per Smerdis. The article obviously has problems, but I'd prefer to have it tagged with a lack-of-sources template, along with citation-needed flags wherever appropriate, until reviewed by an expert. The author is a newcomer, who has made a couple of newbie mis-steps over at the refdesk. It's certainly possible that he is trying to promote a very local celebrity to sainthood in the article. But I prefer to assume good faith. --NorwegianBluetalk 22:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks sufficient notability. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability, no reliable sources... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2009 (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.