Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenji Nio


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Zenji Nio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete Self-styled guru; page is edited and defended by obvious socks of Buddhakahika. See Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a witch-hunt by Jonathan Joshua. I suggest users visit the Talk page of the article and then come to their own conclusions. There are 35 references to credible and professional media outlets and publications all from 2015 onwards. Any connection to a Wikipedia article that may or may not have been made many years ago have no bearing. Any links to blogs by anonymous people have no bearing either. We can only focus on information from credible, independent, published sources. Professoremeritus (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * On his user page Joshua Jonathan has derogatory references to the Buddha and has also been accused of having a bias against Indian spiritual leaders like Yogi Adityanath, a potential successor to Narendra Modi. This may also be fueling his agenda-driven crusade. Have requested meditation and welcome Arbitration as well. Professoremeritus (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The article reads like a fansite; it is (self?)promotional, making a fuzz about Zenji's "accomplishments," while nearly verbatim copying the talking points from his various websites. His main claim to notability, as far as it regards press coverage, is his work as a Buddhist chaplain at the Paralympics.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * How can it read like a fansite when you, Jonathan Joshua were the one to create the main portion? NONE of the personal websites have been listed or quoted from. The article has a neutral AP tone and only references credible, 3rd party, published sources like newspapers. His work has been written about at the Panam Games, Parapan Am Games, Rio Olympics and Paralympics and there are 35 credible links pointing to this. He has also been written about due to his work for the rights of Dalits and Untouchables. A wiki editor's job is not to have a personal agenda byt to be fair and balanced. Professoremeritus (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Overly promotional material making extraordinary claims not backed by reliable sources. Being the chaplain of any given religion at any given sporting event is just no where near a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 'Keep' The article should obviously stay as the subject does indeed meet the standards of being notable. The Times of India is a very credible source and refers to him as "an eminemt and international thinker" in at least 3 articles that are easily found in google. The National Post has written 2 articles about how his museum was the "biggest attraction" at Panam which was the largest event ever held in Canada. That is notable. Dozens of newspapers have reported that he has been instrumental in bringing televisiom coverage of the Paralympics in India which is very notable and relevant. Being the first Westerner to speak for the rights of so-called "Untouchables" at Diksabhumi is extremely notable - especially as that event is attended by millions, literally. This is not "just a chaplain at a sporting event". There are many actors who are not notable, and some who are. Many chaplains are not notable, this one clearly is. He also conducted the first marriage in an Olympic Village. This is notable. He sailed with an athlete and won a silver medal at Panam Games. That is notable. All of the media links are from well known and leading media, albeit in India. I find it quite concerning that anyone could dismiss such serious and reliable media reports as "not reliable". It seems to me that for some editors, "reliable" only means Western media and that is not correct. All of the links are reliable links. The Times of India probably has a bigger circulation that most Western newspapers and has done several stories on him. I am also concerned that the editor Jonathan Joshua who started this campaign against this article is the same one who edited it and at that time he did not find it worthy of deletion. It is also concerning that Jonathan Joshua apparently had a "Smash the Buddha" image and caption on his profile and is targeting a Buddhist leader. The words "Smash the Buddha" are considered "hate speech" in many jurisdictions that Wikipedia operates in including India, Nepal, Thailand and Sri Lanka etc. There is no justification even if some small sect advocatees such language as it is against the law and actionable - I will explain the legal reasoning on the talk page of the article itself. The fact that a seemingly senior Wikpedia editor like Jonathan Joshua can hold such views and be allowed to edit Buddhist themed article, is very concerning and technically makes Wikipedia liable which is very serious. I hope some unbiased Wikipedia editors can look into this, or new editors that are not biased one way or another can add their fair and balanced opinions. I will leave some more thoughts on the Talk Page of the article itself. Artbitration (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Have made a few important points on the Talk page of the Zenji article itself to explain how Joshua Jonthan has broken hate laws as well as libel laws in his edits on this article - which is very serious since Joshua is a senior Wikipedia editor. Have also pointed it out that an often repeated criticism of Wikipedia is that most of the edits are only done by mostly Western males. This article deals with very sensitive issues such as the rights of Dalits as well as people with disabilities in India. Clearly editors with an Indian background should be consulted as they would have the necessary sensitivity to the serious issues as well as knowledge of the clear "reliability" of the Indian newspapers cited. It is unfortunate that such an inspirational and well-sourced article is being attacked this way.Artbitration (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The user, who appeared on Wikipedia only to make the above votes and the comments on the talk page of the article in question, has been blocked indefinitely for violating WP:NLT. Michitaro (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See also diff and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. See further this quote from zenji.org, for Zenji's view of himself:
 * "The sutras make it clear that when the Lord Buddha returns as Maitreya, He will be born to a Brahmin Buddhist family. Above all, in the Lotus Sutra is says that paramparo or lineage based schooling is the highest schooling and that all Heavenly Buddhas have Bharadwaj Gotra which is the exact same gotra of Zenji's lineage! Therefore, Zenji's responsibility and role as a Brahmin-Buddhist Acharya is of incalculable significance (the term Acharya itself was originally for the exclusive use of Zenji's lineage - a tradition that India upholds to this day)."
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a recreation of a deleted article about the same person; Zenji Nio alias Zen Acharya. JimRenge (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has certainly gotten complicated. I knew this article smelled bad the first time I saw it. Yes, it had some references in seemingly reliable sources like the National Post and the Times of India. It seemed the figure had achieved some recognized status. But the name Zenji Nio was suspicious and photo searches confirmed it: Zenji Nio is the same person as Zenji Acharya (or Zen Acharya) (see images here and here), who has been the center of continued disruption on Wikipedia for many years. In 2011-12, a person or persons related to Acharya had peppered Wikipedia with articles and references to Acharya (including the article JimRenge mentions), to his supposed museum, to his supposed film, and in support of his particular and dubious religious doctrines (which focuses on Buddhist Brahmins, Nio Zen, etc.). One article created from this was Niō Zen, which has since been turned into a redirect. All this came to the surface in part through the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karma:_The_New_Revolution. That AfD experienced what this AfD has as well: the sudden appearance of new SPA's participating in the AfD with grand claims about discrimination and intolerance. In that case, it became clear that these were sockpuppets: see Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika/Archive. Since then, Buddhahahika's sockpuppets have appeared repeatedly to disrupt Wikipedia, spouting the same religious views using bad sources. While I will leave it to the SPI to determine if the accounts that created this article are sockpuppets of Buddhakahika, it is very clear to me that they are in the least meat puppets engaged in supporting the same person. Yes, it seems like the article has a few good sources and yes it seems this person has done something that a few news sources have reported. But I have noted that some of the use of these sources is blatant POV editing, such as changing the content of quotes (see my correction ). I also recall that the original Karma: The New Revolution article also had some sources from The Times of India, reporting about some splendid film that, through hard searches, turned out never to exist. It seems that some of those sources may have been the result of the ability to manipulate media sources on the part of Acharya; I can't help but think some of that is the case here, too. In the end, given the history of this person--and again, Nio is Acharya--and the way Wikipedia has been long abused by supporters of this person, I must conclude that this article should be deleted. If there is an argument for notability, I would say that in the least, this article is so thoroughly tainted that it has to be dynamited and begun from scratch by truly third-person editors. Michitaro (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 'Keep': You are holding against him what others wrote about him 6 years ago! Is this fair? This almost seems surreal. The sources are credible and the work meets the notability guidelines. Whether or not he was involved in a film on Karma years ago or whether any fan sites talk about his lineage etc has no bearing on this article. All the article should be concerned about is --- what is cited from the reliable 3r party sources -- not what was written about some other article 6 years ago or what some fan site writes. As per your suggestion, I will try to re-edit it taking out any and all references that may be seen as controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professoremeritus (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see with the SPI archive on Buddhakahika, users associated with this person have been disturbing Wikipedia repeatedly for over five years, leading to over 30 SPI investigations, several happening each year. They have uncovered well over 100 sockpuppets. This is a continuing assault on Wikipedia, not some past occurrence. Michitaro (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article does cite a number of news articles, but the ones I checked, they are just reporting a press conference where "a city NGO" complained about lack of TV coverage about another event, and it so happens that at this press conference Zenji Nio was present. This not only meets WP:1E if we are generous, it is closer to "zero event" because that press conference covered by many articles are not "intellectually independent of each other" and actually presents the views of "Suchandra Ganguly" far more than Zenji Nio. I am surprised that the article creator did not bother to pitch an article on Suchandra Ganguly (to the little I checked), but has been trying too hard to keep one for Zenji Nio. We must take press conferences with a grain of salt, as they are a sort of news-placement, generally of non-notable issue that journalists wouldn't rush to. They don't make the speakers or the journalists at that event notable. I see no persuasive reason to keep this article, and strong persuasive reasons to delete it. Plus WP:SALT it given the repeated attempts per @Michitaro's comment above. Yes, something notable occurs in future, an admin can always unsalt it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So you just discount that the Times of India calls him a "noted and eminent thinker" who is invited to lecture at a mjor university in India? It shows he is notable for more than just being a chaplain. And if someone with over 100 socks vandalizes a page, is the subject of the page to be held responsible? And many independent films do not get released. If he worked on a film with Bob Thurman that did not get a major release, its reason to doubt the Times of India? I got involved when my edits on the Lotus Sutra were just overturned. It seems a few editors, all known to each other, can just make decisions as they please and with due respect, it seems someone is "trying too hard" to delete this article. All this time there was no question of notability, now suddenly there is. All this time there seemed to be consensus even with Jim and Joshua that the work with the Olympians, BBC is noteworthy and now suddenly that's discounted too? So 30 reliable sources still don't make someone notable? And I noticed the same thing with my edits on the Lotus Sutra. Somehow Paul Williams quote should be in the top section but the other quotes should be moved. And the same editors always involved. If only there was a way to engage editors who are not from the Buddhist section, there will be more fairness here. Professoremeritus (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Professoremeritus: You did not address my concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (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.