Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurunath


 * 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 of the debate was keep. This does seem more of a content dispute than anything else, but the fact that this it is a name used at least somewhat commonly in India rules out a complete delete. Of interest is the fact that the word "Gurunath" does not even appear on the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page, which certainly does not help the argument that the Gurunath article should be about the word coinage claim. The page will be kept, but primarily to mention the use as an Indian name. The other section should be removed, or put at the bottom of the page *after* it is at least mentioned (and referenced) on the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page. Turnstep 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gurunath
Insufficient notability with respect to content. There are between 4 and 50 google hits when you search for "shri gurudev mahendranath" and "gurunath" or "mahendranath" and "gurunath". Most of these don't even apply to the content. Whereas "Gurunath" alone gets almost 52,000 hits, since it is a common name in India. The individual who gets the most hits (1,140) for "gurunath" is "yogiraj gurunath". I suggest deleting this article and redirecting link to his article.''' Hamsacharya dan 14:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC) The nominated redirect was speedily kept as the nomination was withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy Keep - nominator has made it clear below that this is actually a content dispute. He is also guilty of harrassment, having stalked me to this article in retaliation and in an attempt to intimidate with respect to a content dispute in . ---Baba Louis 16:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Who was the first person to even edit a Gurunath page? I suggest you look before indulging in accusations.  If anything I would point to the reverse scenario.  Hamsacharya dan 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - you were. And because it was an inappropriate redirect, it was listed on Redirects for Deletion, and is in the March archives . The result of the nomination was "Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title." which was done by your old friend Adityanath... Here's a copy of the archived entry:
 * Gurunath &rarr; Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath -- Gurunath is a title used by people other than the redirect subject. For example, the current leader of my lineage is Shri Gurunath Kapilnath. Adityanath 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Advice taken. Thanks. Adityanath 19:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This doesn't address the topic of this AfD, which is the issue of notability. Google hits for Gurunath consist of 50,000 given names, titles, and religious proclamations.  The only individual that gets more than a few Ghits for Gurunath is Yogiraj Gurunath.  Wikipedia has already deemed twice (based on two AfD's - you and I both attempted at different times to have Yogiraj Gurunath page deleted) that he is notable enough to keep on wikipedia.  I don't think "Gurunath" by itself has any use to be on wikipedia.  So either the page should be deleted, or it should be a simple redirect to Yogiraj Gurunath.  Also don't forget that until proven otherwise, you are still a confirmed sockpuppet of Adityanath per wp:rfcu..  Hamsacharya dan 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the word is a title and not a name, it would be inappropriate to redirect to any one individual. User:Hamsacharya dan is a student of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath who is trying to inappropriately promote his guru on WP. In point of fact, his guru is no more prominent than Shri Mahendranath. "gurudev mahendranath" gets 920 Ghits and "Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath" actually gets a few less, 910 Ghits . Surely if it is true that the use of the word as a title predated Shri Mahendranath, it must be listed in a dictionary or two which can be cited. Other editors have provided no cites, only anecdotes. ---Baba Louis 15:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Question: What do you think the word "Gurunath" means?  Guru + Nath = Spiritual teacher + Irradiant Lord .  These are ancient words that come from an ancient spiritual/religious context.  Isn't that how we often name our children in the west - based on religious or biblical connotations?  Well it's no different in the East.  That why the word Gurunath came to be used to name children in India.  Isn't that obvious? Not the other way around - Mahendranath didn't take a "given name" and turn it into a religious title.  That's ludicrous and probably unprecedented.  It's like saying "You have achieved a great spiritual stature.  I now bestow the title of 'Jimmy' on you."  Maybe in Wikipedia getting a title of "Jimbo" might mean something great...but that's neither here nor there.  The term Gurunath has been used as a title for saints and avatars for thousands of years.  "Bolo Sri Sat Gurunath Maharaj Ki Jai" is a proclamation that is perhaps millenia old. Here are some refs to appease the skeptics:            Hamsacharya dan 19:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - what's obvious is that if it was previously used as a title, it would have a dictionary entry or academic reference. Feel free to visit the library. I've looked myself, but didn't find one. ---Baba Louis 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - and it still doesn't have one, even AFTER Mahendranath. So that tells us absolutely nothing.  Compounded with the fact that most sanskrit texts have never been translated.  Hamsacharya dan 15:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - it doesn't really matter, does it, whether Gurunath is a name or a title, you cannot redirect it to Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. As a title, it has been given to other documented individuals. As a name, it is the name of numerous individuals. Would you redirect "John" to some individual named John who happens to currently have more Google hits than any other John? You are not making sense. This AfD is a bad faith effort to delete this article only so you can make an inappropriate redirect. I suggest you withdraw it. ---Baba Louis 17:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - whether they decide to redirect it is up to the voters. It was just a suggestion, which I feel to be a valid one.  Hamsacharya dan 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - nomination is clearly in bad faith. -999 03:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - just because one cannot find references in libraries or the Internet doesn't mean it cannot be apart of a living, breathing tradition. For example, buying a Lonely Planet book on India will give some information about local customs and sayings that one wouldn't necessarily find in a formal publication. Also, there are some publications that are either out of print or very hard to track down - further still remember that India is one of the biggest publishers of books...the wealth of literary gems found there beggars belief when one takes time out to look for things (again some translations not always being available in English).  The religious tradition in India is VAST. It is impossible to have it all readily available for us all that are information or reference hungry. Also, it takes alot more than taking a short visit or googling and then thinking one knows India (and Her manifold religious traditions) inside/out in actual fact. 86.10.229.248 19:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath
 * comment - Please note this is a delete vote. User has forgotten to clearly embolden the delete nomination.  Hamsacharya dan 05:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks for reminding me to embolden Hamsacharya Dan!86.10.229.248Shaninath
 * Comment - Yes, but without a reference any such information cannot be included in Wikipedia due to the no original research rule. This article cites the necessary documentation and thus is acceptable. According to WP rules, if you would like to include additional uses of the word, you simply need to provide a reference. The onus for providing a reference falls on the editor wanting to include the information. &mdash;Hanuman Das 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shaninath (86.10.229.248) and Redirect per Hamsacharya Dan - This article only has notability in the same way the word John has notability - a generalized word will have plenty of google hits, but wont merit an encyclopedic entry in and of itself. That's why Ghits don't tell you everything. Kalagni Nath 20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - obscure, but well-documented from primary sources. Also, since it has been stated to be a common name and surname in India, it should not be redirected to a specific individual even if the existing article is deleted. -Ekajati 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - no reason to delete. &mdash;Hanuman Das 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Confirmed Sockpuppet by RFCU of another voter   -  is the new username (by changing username) of    -- Hamsacharya dan 20:33, 25 April 2006 (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.