Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S

Acharya S

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently an author in the field of comparative religion, but her "notable theories" are as about as groundbreaking as a plastic shovel in permafrost. Assertions of notability may be valid, but I don't know if the publication of a few pieces of "pulp academia" are worthy of inclusion. Tom Lillis 09:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

A point which is stated in both of her books. These observations have been made since the beginnings of christianity even by the church fathers themselves. That said, there is absolutely no reason to keep this piece on Wikipedia because it is nothing more than a defaming hit piece. -el Lobo

• Another point: Bringing her child into all of this is about as low as it gets and if nothing else that should be erased immediately.

It is obvious that much of this article is does little more than humiliate and disparage. -el Lobo

I concur with Lobo....erase the disparaging remarks represented by Zarov and while you are at it...delete him too. This person is not worthy of receiving ANY respect as an editor or "professional" writer, any more than a zoo monkey. If I sound disparaging of him, it is because he deserves it. Spreading information about her personal life is tantamount to the tactics of a "National Enquirer", not the professionalism of what claims to be an Encyclopaedia. She is a living breathing person and anyone should have her permission to say anything personal about her in a respectable forum such as Wikipedia claims to be. The last time I looked, the Acharya S. site as laid out looked reasonable enough, but apparently, the monkey is busy changing it. I might suspect he is a stalker, what with his fixation on the author. Rene/Skull

• Addendum: In light of the conspiracy under which this article was formed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alteripse#Acharya_S_2

and continues to present http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zarove and due to recent Wikipedia travails, removal of this article is imperitive to avoid more of the same.

-el Lobo

I concur that this piece should be permanently deleted, on the grounds that it was written as a propaganda/hit piece by user:Zarove. In addition, others have colluded with this intent. User:Crazy Eddie (an admin?) writes that this is about what he can "get away with" in an effort to make the author "look like a nut". This is not good for the author, whose reputation is being deliberately tarnished, nor is it good for wikipedia. ^^James^^ 20:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• What exactly is the problem with the article ? For someone who knows nothing about this person, it doesn't read too much like propaganda. She seems to have a decent number of google hits. Tintin 21:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Users should be aware that this article has been involved in an extensive edit war, accumulating more than 350 edits, many with acrimonious comments left in the edit summaries. The talk page has accumulated so much discussion that it has three archives. ◎DanMS 18:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As told in the above comments, it has been edited extensively and also by at least 5-6 notable wiki contributers. There are also many internet sites discussing this controversy.--Raghu 04:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm neither a member of the wiki community, nor of Acharya's list. I surfed in on a whim awhile back, it's been interesting to follow.

Perhaps Zarove isn't the best person to write the definitive version, since he appears to have an axe to grind. For the same reason, neither should anyone from Acharya's group.

To bemoan some "conspiracy" against her is to trivialize the word. The talkpage entries are there for the world to see. I'm currently conspiring to check my email, and will do so within the hour. Later this evening I've conspired to do some laundry.

Many criticisms of her work exist, in varying quality, and it's ludicrous to expect Wikipedia to wave them away with one token sentence and two links. Check out the wiki entries for L. Ron Hubbard, David Icke, Lyndon LaRouche, Mother Theresa even. (Granted, the neutrality of the Mother Theresa entry is in dispute. Apparently she's the victim of "malicious gossip.")

I don't think Zarove's final version was particularly hostile to her, although Zarove himself is. (It's not difficult to see how he might have gotten that way.) Points that were simply factual and emotionally neutral have been construed as attacks. Anyone who can't tell the difference is not up to the job of editing his work.

He's essentially correct in this: it's not about him. Pull him out of here, let someone else attempt a consensus version, and what will happen? Anything that doesn't function as a press release for Acharya S will be challenged by her followers until it does.

Or until Wikipedia tires of listening to them. Given its vindictive reputation--if the Church of Scientology can live with criticisms of L. Ron Hubbard, the church of Acharya S can do the same.

12/11/05 The author of the above claims to have just come here on a whim being neither a "wikipedian" or a member of the "church of Acharya". The above person did not leave a username, so shall be named "dual personality", since they dont know the meaning of conspire! Dual (for short), has no idea of what is transpiring in this wikipedia "rumor-mongering' and "libellous" affair. Neither has "dual" taken the time to learn more about how others have been victimised in a personal way that has affected their reputations by lies posted here. Apparently "dual', apart from the condescending nature of the post, shall not be the one to develope a fair consensus, because said person has already made up their minds.

    Zarove didnt become the way he is because of Acharya's defenders.  He is simply that way by choice, spreading personal and defamatory information and otherwise being fixated in the manner of a stalker.  He better take seriously what he is doing because it could end badly for him with legal force being set on his tail.  He has made insinuating and downright threatening statements to the effect of getting more personal information on her.  What has that to do with what should be a simple matter here at Wikipedia?  He has the defense of being anonymous right now, but he will be found out and tracked for the statements he has made and has no business doing so.  If the founder of Wikipedia does not take serious action about how things are done here, he could find his reputation and Wikipedia's going down the toilet.
   I do not believe in censorship, but when it comes down to some nobody or anybody, hiding behind anonymity, failing to uphold expectations of quality with civilised behaviour and academic standards...they deserve the "boot".  In the real world, a journalist or writer would interview the subject, do the research (supposing they have that capability) and address matters without prejudice.  Zarov has clearly represented himself, NOT to have these high standards at all.  Yes, this is about him, because he is the AUTHOR of the wikipedia site on Acharya.  His bias and the strings to which he is attached are in question....just as the above "dual's" lack of understanding of the harm this forum has by unprofessional fruitcakes.  In fact, I consider "dual's" blase attitude insulting.     Rene/Skull