Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda


 * 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.

After having had new input on this and after over a year, still a lack of independent sources to show notability, I've switched this result to delete, for lack of notability and promotional content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The result was   '''Keep following no consensus, topic has unknown notability and may indeed be promotional. Strongly suggest a rewrite to rm advertising slant'''. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda

 * Sri Nithyananda


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

Appears to be non-notable and promotional - if one stripped the promotion and OR away I'm not actually sure what would be left, and he talk page suggests this concern is not new, nor has it been addressed. Hence, I advocate its deletion. Orderinchaos 11:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete This entry seems to be written by either an acolyte of Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda or the sect's publicity division. It is so full of swarmy, fawning descriptions that an excision of them would leave nothing but the title. The style of this article is so remote from any semblance of objective information that I am surprised that it has not been deleted in 2005. It is a blight on the standards of the Wikipedia in so far as it lowers this site's reputation as an encyclopedia in the mind of everyone who comes across it and is not a follower of Nithyananda.124.182.208.168 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (Note to closing admin - I can vouch for the IP above - it is a person I know professionally who is the actual initiator of this action but didn't know the technical specifics of creating a deletion debate.) Orderinchaos 12:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is currently a weak article. The references are insufficently tied to the text.  The article currently has serious POV problems.  But if the guy has a significant number of followers, he is notable, without regard to whether or not we personally think his philosophy is credible.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:59, 31 May 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.