Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harikesa Swami

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 keep. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harikesa Swami

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

W* Page contained potentially libelous text about a living person. Not neutral. RobertC - Hari (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What in the article is potential libel? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Previous AfD was closed as keep for Robert Campagnola here. I suggest any editor must remove ANY potential libel text immediatelly without a delay. There have been no evidence from any secondary sources to suggest that Robert_Campagnola is the same living person as Harikesa Swami, ~~at least I could not find any. I suggest that this article is kept but any reference to any Campagnola is removed. Morever I have seen unconfirmed claims that this Swami has died in 1998.~~ Wikid ^as© 15:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you for removing stuff that is 'libelous' from the article. Some of it was not actually! So why do you keep removing! I do not want to have the article deleted. The website clearly states that it is the same person. http://www.robertcampagnola.com/content/about.txt?883 How to make sure this article is kept? Can somebody help? Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Campagnola (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the vandalism surrounding this article and others related to it, someone has signed that they are Robert Campagnola. This is untrue. Robert Campagnola has never written that last comment. I should know as I am him. I have added historically accurate information into the history of Harikesa Swami. If you do not like this information and cannot tolerate that someone could have done something worthy of historical note in 30 years, then kindly agree to delete this page. I did not create it, I do not want it. However, if it must be there, then it should at least be true and relevant. If the only relevance that you can conceive of is that this person was initiated into a religious movement, then he took some medicines and then left the movement, then there is another agenda here and this is not neutral, neither does it fit within the category of being historically relevant to Hinduism. --Hari 23:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Hari 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcamp108 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AFD started by the person the article is about, in dispute (see attempts to wipe the page in the past). Previous AFD failed. Let's move on! - Chopper Dave (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per cites brought up in previous AfD Wikidas pointed out. Libel is a reason to delete that statement, not the whole article. Neutrality is a reason to rewrite those portions (and I have tagged it NPOV). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - however I suggest that since an editor and the subject of the BLP is raising a request that the article about him is deleted, I suggest it could be done. There are other avenues to it, better than AfD. It is done by communication. On the type of material that can be kept see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content‎. It was me to put up the article for AfD first time. I still see no realiable good sources in the article that give any light on the subject, who actually wants the article about him removed. I suggest this may override any reasons of AfD itself as to the existence of the article, but it is not automatic. So even if Devamrita' Dave is voting to Keep, he needs to make sure the article is sourced, and he has not done anything to this effect, except of adding whole bunch of material that is not factual (not sourced).

Delete - I requested for the second time that this article be deleted. As anyone can edit this page, it has become the fashion to put in things that have no historical value and delete that which actually has value in history. When a page has such back and forth as this one has, is there really any value in keeping it around? And the only reason I became involved in this is because the original page where this data appeared and had peacefully remained for over 18 months was vandalized with a redirect to this page and it was rewritten in a nonsensical manner. I am watching this carefully now and attempting to restore it. Previously, the text was agreed to by Chopper Dave who assisted me in putting it in a better format. If this page is to be kept, it should be kept in a proper format. As the history mentioned within is a verbal history as there are no books yet available on the history of this person, the person himself is a great source of what happened to him. Since I am he, and I do know quite well what happened, I tried to save the situation by putting in facts that have a historical interest. I have now shaved that down again. Please see my comment above where I explain that the this Wiki has the problem that anyone can spoof anything, as in the comment supposedly written by myself where I ask the page be kept, or one can create links that supposedly prove something. As the internet can contain any information and its validity is not required, using internet links as proof of something is not valid.--Hari 23:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Hari 23:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Article is about a BLP and is based on blogs that make many claims about this individual. Article can be recreated if/when reliable sources are found - but as is, this article should be deleted per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous discussion ended recently with all votes to keep. No new arguments presented here, beside some hoaxes claiming to be the person. Also claim to speedy delete and recreate is not valid. Nothing outrageous found in the article and it reads as an advertisement. (User) Mb (Talk) 12:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on current state of the article and current sources.(Nonwithstanding the fact that other sources, specifically in other languages exist).

They are clearly biased, usually positively. The person seem to be overly positive about himslef. We aim to avoid presenting opinions as facts, it is not an ad. Thus WP:NPOV has to apply.
Claims in this 'advert' sketch appear to be unverifiable, most of them. Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. No exceptions, all unverifiable claims on WP:Truth will be removed. Sources should comply with WP:RS.
A lot of the article (if not the whole lot) is original research. The editor/subject includes information that has never been published before by anyone and is the result of firsthand knowledge, as claimed. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research in order to verify it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance; original research is not permitted in Wikipedia. Thus all such puffery, OR and unverifiable claims to be removed.
Having checked a number of rather verifiable sources of the previous AfD, I suggest that the article is to be rewritten as suggested by Ism in his speedy delete vote. Nowhere in the article any libel claim can be found and the nominator failed to illustrate libel information anywhere, he seems to have a strange idea on it alltogether, only some clingie claims of a retired meglomaniac as it appears, thus no need to erase the article; nominator did not answer the first question. I am adding a second line for search of the sources based on previous AfD. I wish the article was erased, but now with two AfDs and the whole lot of sources discovered by Gaura it has to stay. Wikid ^as© 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.