Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehera Irani


 * 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 redirect to Mandali (Meher Baba). (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Mehera Irani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The 3 volume work by David Fenster is not a reliable source; neither the author nor the publication house has any credibility/repute and t÷he publication house is non-independent.

As determined in a RSN thread; Bhau Kalchuri's biography is not reliable (for largely the same reasons) except as to verification of non-extraordinary claims. Certainly, it does not add any to notability.

We are left with Purdom, who (despite being one of Meher baba's closest associates) has covered her in the context of his narrative about Meher baba via a a reliable press. But, a single source doesn't confer a passage of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.

I don't locate any other reliable source that covers her signifcantly (in a non-trivial fashion) and hence, seek a redirect to Mandali_(Meher_Baba) &#x222F; WBG converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  &#x222F; WBG converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  &#x222F; WBG converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  &#x222F; WBG converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least this one's a save. The publishing house of George Allen & Unwin(now Allen & Unwin) is, in fact, one of the most credible publishing houses in the world. It published, for instance, J. R. Tolkian's The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbitt, among many other well known publications. A reputable source. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to compare publication of fiction with non-fiction? That seems odd, and one non-neutral author/source does not notability make. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The publishing house is notable and reputable. It published a nonfiction book which lends reputability to this article. Maybe the book can be used to bulk up some of the cites on the deleted articles, but I'm surprised that the Baba editors here were strangely silent on the burial site page. I got caught up in these pages when the first wave of deletions were ongoing out of a sense of fairness. Is Baba so disliked in India? Peter Townshend seems to really like him, which should say something in his behalf. And, of course, Don't Worry, Be Happy gave him a nice image. I guess I'm missing something in terms of understanding the dislike, but that's neither Here or there. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you are again casting aspersions, despite being warned about it by when they closed the recent AfD on a related matter - this has nothing to do with dislike and I, for one, am not even from India or of Indian heritage. And, for what it is worth, the opinion of Pete Townshend counts for nothing more than mine here, and the status of the publisher means nothing in terms of the notability of the subject. As I've just said on your talk page, I think you need to read WP:CIR. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't answer my question as to why a published book by a reputable publisher doesn't "count". Because, as you say below, it's labeled as being written by a hagiographer? Where is that line drawn? Anyway, this woman seems to have been the central female in the Baba group, and that seems important enough to the topic to be worthy of an article as long as a good source by a reputable publisher has been included, which it seems to have been. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP:GNG says:- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
 * Purdom counts somewhat (though not very strongly, courtesy the independence concerns) but even then, it's a single source contra the emphasis on plural, in the above quote. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * are claiming that David Fenster's volumes were/are published by George Allen & Unwin; what?! Why not take some time, before !voting? &#x222F; WBG converse 17:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake, and thanks for pointing it out in case I hadn't caught it already. But the book that I meant above that they did publish, Charles Purdom's work, is reputable and should satisfy even you. Why doesn't it? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was your mistake. You're also making the mistake of (again) misunderstanding WP:GNG and again misunderstanding that a hagiographer etc is not independent. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And I quickly reverted the mistake, even before comments about it were posted. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And I quickly reverted the mistake, even before comments about it were posted. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per lack of significant coverage and inability to verify. The debate so far has been whether a single book that references the subject is itself notable. Disciples of barely notable religious figures are not themselves notable. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the article and Mandali (Meher Baba). Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mandali (Meher Baba) as nominator has explained. Disciples of notable religious figures can be notable in their own right, such as Swami Vivekananda who was a disciple of Ramakrishna and Sister Nivedita who in turn was a disciple of Swami Vivekananda. What should be looked at is their individual contributions. Mehera Irani's individual contributions are not widely covered in literature/newspapers which makes me feel that it is best redirected.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mandali (Meher Baba) per DreamLinker's comment. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.