Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gangaji

Gangaji being "famous" is relative. Restating what I have said many times: My objection has always been that the article is essentially promotional and apologetic and based on self-published sources associated with the subject, which are contentious (disputed claims), unduly self-serving (presents Gangaji's subjective claims as fact); makes claims about third parties (claims about Papaji that are suspect based on Papaji's own published statements which are not self-published); and involve claims about events not directly related to the subject (relative to Papaji and also the disputed lineage), which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. The only NPOV and truly attributable source left is the Ashland Tidings newspaper article, and not even Rick Ross has anything more on this NRM group which some including ex-followers consider a cult than that article which illustrates the lack of notability. Meanwhile, whether citable in the article or not, not only has Papaji stated in third party published works more recently than Gangaji's last visit to her guru statements which conflict with her claims about her "mission", but there is widespread and substative criticism of the subject by relative experts (Kazlev, Langford) and other authors and spiritual teachers (Cohen, Conway), exclusion of which under policy grounds, while not applying Wikipedia policies that also excludes the self-published material, presents a misleading picture, and Wikipedia policy is to avoid misleading information just because secondary sourcing is lacking. The problem here is that when you have an obscure subject making exceptional and unverifiable claims in self-published materials, and due to obscurity these claims are not addressed in attributable, secondary sources, you are not permitted to present self-published material which should be excluded per Wikipedia either. No self-published information that does not meet the requirements is acceptable, and given the hard line in taking mere criticism of a person's subjective claims of spiritual attainment which being exceptional claims require more exceptional sourcing as unacceptable, as per Wikipedia policy, I continue to state it is better to have zero information than misleading information. The only acceptable article would be a stub based solely on the Daily Tidings article alone. I do not think Gangaji is notable enough to have developed the bulk of secondary, fact checked sources needed for an encyclopedic article. My position has always been that it is better it be deleted than to allow Wikipedia to be misused for promotional purposes. --Dseer (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)