Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Tewari


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Paramahamsa Tewari

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is based on single source (ET report) apart from a self published source. Also a case of WP:COPYVIO. I am inclined to say that this article should be deleted.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  17:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This article not based on single source.Please see   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amruth M D (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: At the time I tagged the article, it was based on single source and a self published source. Article still needs to pass WP:GNG.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep:- Subject of the article is a notable engineer and inventor. He was formerly an Executive Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India . I also found India Today, Economic Times and World Science Database]. The fact that an article contain a single source is not a valid reason for deletion. I remind the  that deletion is not the only way to deal with Copyright infringement problems. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleting is a way to fix copyright issues. Voting «Strong Keep» without editing the article is not a way to fix copyright issues. Spumuq (talq) 15:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - New sources have been added since nomination by ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, it has copyright violation and NPOV faults. Spumuq (talq) 15:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:REDFLAG. For an individual who is supposed to be notable for defying the First law of thermodynamics, there should be a LARGE number of independent and reliable academic sources covering this historic breakthrough. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, A prototype of the article tested in the labs of Kirloskar Group exhibited 165% bullshit. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep:-The fact that he invented the an electrical generator with 165% shows his worth which motivated me to write this article. Please give suggestions how to solve the issues involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amruth M D (talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, there lies your problem Amruth M D, because he actually didn't invent such a device. I do hope he left the Indian Nuclear Power industry before he thought this thing up. He may have notability for that but I'm not sure, and I don't think that claiming to have invented perpetual motion, or a 165% efficient generator, which of course would change the world, put the totality of the worlds scientists out of jobs, cure poverty and Yaws overnight, actually makes somebody notable. I'm on the fence still. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 15:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What it comes down to is that we have nothing on which to build an accurate article. The announcements of "free energy from space" come from two Indian news outlets, one from 1987 and one from 2015. Either an evil conspiracy has been making sure no news of this giant breakthrough gets outside of India, or these are two very gullible sources (indeed, their comments section includes speculation that it is all an April Fool's joke) . The rest of the sources listed are all fringe. (Yes, Tewari graduated with a degree in Electrical Engineering and is a former Executive at India's Nuclear Power Corporation - but that in itself is not sufficient to make him notable enough for his own article.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the copyvio (wayback verified that the claimed source pre-dates it being in the WP article). Note also that User:1.23.64.62, claimed that the identical whole sentences were not a cut'n'paste problem...suspect we have WP:COMPETENCE/WP:COI of some sort here. I'm not yet taking a position on the article AFD itself. DMacks (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has 12 references and does not violate Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amruth M D (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing - this article is a testament to the gullibility or lack of journalistic integrity of the publications cited, none of which establish this is notable. --nonsense ferret  18:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fringe subjects with only credulous sources make for non-neutral and bad encyclopedia articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'll comment on an AfD for once. I find these sources very suspect - overly non-critical approach and details are lacking on the supposed "verifications". Maybe in the future there will be evidence that such a device does actually work, but we don't have to prognosticate. And without good sourcing an article making such WP:EXCEPTIONAL statements can't stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as badly-sourced credulous unencyclopaedic bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2015 (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.