Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother's Agenda


 * 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 Mirra Alfassa. Unclear whether there's consensus for a full delete; the redirect allows interested editors to merge any worthwhile content to the author's article.  Sandstein  12:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Mother's Agenda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Shameless NPOV violation, fringe content about an obscure cult work which barely (if at all) merits a sentence in the Aurobindo article. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  14:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a typical book article. I don't find any NPOV violation. It's true that there are no third party review of the work, but that should not hamper the merit of this book series. Moreover, the article is mentioned in both, Aurobindo's page as well as Mother's page. HemaChandra88 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * reply - You don't consider a lede stating the book "narrates her experiences in her yoga of the cells (or transformation of the body's consciousness)" to be an NPOV violation? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what the author believes. Are you saying that you would edit the Quran or the Bible as not the exact words from God? HemaChandra88 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If I understand you, yes. No article on a religious text should suggest that it is literally written by some god. Doug Weller  talk 18:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Note apparent COI editing in article history, including substantial contributions by someone called Themother1 as well as the book's translator. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. Mother has been dead for long. It's just someone using her name for editing purposes. HemaChandra88 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite that dumb... it's an indication of potential COI, not a claim of mediumship. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WIkipedia claims to be a neutral place, right. Are you saying that a person affiliated with the subject matter of an article not edit it? HemaChandra88 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They should read and follow WP:COI. Doug Weller  talk 18:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Being mentioned in the other articles is nice but doesn't make the book notable, How does it meet WP:NBOOK? Doug Weller  talk 15:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet our notability requirements for books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * obvious merge to Mirra Alfassa, the author. Mangoe (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2016 (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.