Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guru Dileepji


 * 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 -- JForget  23:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Guru Dileepji

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

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,&mdash; Maggot Syn 00:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Boy, this article needs some work. But I have to say keep based on his involvement with yoga organisations worldwide. He's a member of the World Yoga Council of the International Yoga Federation, a IYF delegate to the United Nations, and has been a delegate to the World's Parliament of Religions conference. Better sourcing is needed, though, of course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Delete based on WP:COPYVIO. I still think that the person could be the subject of an acceptable article on WP, but in its current form obviously it should be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:V and NPOV tests; and smells to me like a possible copyvio as well. "A practicing yogi from the womb"? This does not belong here. If you believe you can verify that he's notable from reliable sources, stub it and rebuild from the ground up. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per above. I am somewhat of an inclusionist and might change my opinion if the article is properly sourced and cleaned up.  Although the matter of clean up isn't a factor in an AfD debate, the current state of the article doesn't make me want to engage its content.  Has anyone checked to see if this is a copyright vio?  Many similarly unwikified articles on this topic turn out to be. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Extraordinary claims, which abound in this article, require extraordinary proof, much of which will unquestionably never be forthcoming. If someone wanted to stubbify it and cut out the incredible claims, I can see it being kept, but given the state of the article now, I question the likelihood of that happening. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyright Violation as I suspected. The text has been lifted from [|here] and/or from other sites. - House of Scandal (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not much more to say .... normally the case is no sources ... this is the first AFD when there is no more actual article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Two weeks of discussion have passed in this Afd. There are no reasons to believe the subject to be notable nor do reliable sources exist. As such, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2008 (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.