Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Budhpuri Ji

Swami Budhpuri Ji

Swami Budhpuri Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

You can figure out the policy basis yourself: all I know is that there is nothing here to form a proper basis for an article. Note that an article on the same person, Swami Buddhapuri Ji, was previously speedied as a copyvio. This is not a blatant copyvio, but it is still not keepable in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikepedia doesn't seem to have 'Yeah, right, pull the other one' as a rationale for deletion, but it probably should. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: Patent spam. Nothing worth saving. Sister article Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga was already speedy deleted as spam. The present article was created the same day it had been deleted under a slight different spelling. The primary authors are spam-only accounts with no useful edits in two years. All of their edits have been to this article and the sister article, or have been links to them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Kill it with fire. Unscrupulous spam. I almost deleted the claim that he hasn't eaten food since 2004, but I don't want to obscure how craptastic the article is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wow! I just read that article. I'm not sure it's salvageable. Delete, unless someone can go in and separate and organize the flecks of verifiable content from the horde of nonsense. Like I said, I don't think it's going to happen, but I'll keep an open mind, so I guess it's only a Weak Delete. VanIsaac_WS 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• 'Nuke it from orbit. No point in me wasting more words trying to explain the problem; the people above have said it as well as I could. bobrayner (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - The article has good references.66.199.140.95 (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - WP:CSD G11. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Removed some unverified claims. Please address specific text in the article which seems inappropriate, instead of merely recommending for deletion. 72.14.181.182 (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This article provides plenty of sources which never mention the name of this person. India is a land of Sadhus and anyone wearing saffron can become one. No notable or verifiable sources and the material is not written from a neutral point of view.Vivekananda De--tAlK 12:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please mention which references are irrelevant.Ssky (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note 1,2,3,49,21,24,25,26 clearly mentions Swami Budhpuri Ji name and note many of them clearly states that he is head of the Shabad Surat Sangam Ashram as well as Dera Harisar at Kila raipur and also the inventor of Siddhamrit surya kriya yog. Please refer to the particular text which doesn't seems to be neutral and I'll change it.Ssky (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The Tribune is reliable source as is the Hindustan Times, the article has Garbage claims in it but the topic is notable and has multiple WP:RS. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep- I have followed this debate. Curiously, I realize much of the text and so termed "nonsense" must have been deleted for I could fine none. This certainly does not appear as a blatant copyvio, and is therefore certainly not unkeepable. And it is really good that Wikipedia does not have a "pull the other one down" rationale, for even though the sister articles might have been deleted, every article ought to be tested on its own content. And on its own grounds it stands well. The article only states plain facts, which I found verifiable by the references provided (I checked all of them, except for no. 23, there is an explicit mention of the subject). Further, there are links to published books of the subject also given. The article cannot be deleted on grounds of "unverifiable references" - that would be ill-justified. As for the fact of the subject staying without food (which anyways seems to have been deleted by now), there can be no longer a dispute over the possibility of such an occurrence (see for example, the Discovery Channel's documentary and the BBC's coverage of the Buddha Boy). This article is a keep; not a clarion-call, tiger roar "keep", but a resilient "keep", nonetheless.Svechu (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Books describes itself as Self Publishing Website. There is still substantial references from News papers and the such. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If you check out the newspaper sources, you'll find that only one of them is an articles in any real sense. The rest are just promotional community-level announcements of lectures, yoga camps and similar events. The information almost certainly derives from the promoters of the movement themselves, and not from any "investigative reporting", except for the "In search of truth" article. As for the non-self published sources (Singh and Jhansi), both of them mention the Swami only in the preface, which may or may not have been written by the authors themselves. All but three of the sources are self-published or promotional, and of the three, two are insignificant. This leaves the "In Search of Truth" article as the only reliable source, and that's used to source a single rather trivial biographic event. That's not even enough to establish the notability of the subject. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • What about the article on 'The power of the sun' by The New Indian Express, 23-Jan-2009. Does the same article should also be available in their online version? I mean it is was published in 2009. Also I've read the book Chingar Ton Brahma Jot and preface is written by Dr. Jatinderpal Singh and Dr. Rekha Jhansi. I'll add ISBN numbers shortly. besides that there are books on Swami written by others like Harkanwal Korpal: The Haloed Trinity and Dr. Laxman Das Saddi : Biography of Swami Dayal Puri. I'll try adding there isbn # too.Bcsadhak (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the article seems to have been taken from this webpage; the same website was reportedly the source of the previous incarnation of this article. Random phrases (eg "the far-flung caves of the Himalayas") are in this article and on that webpage. Thus the article seems to be made up of copyvios from a problematic self-advertising source. Mathsci (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a Copyvio?! Why are we bothering to debate, then? 86.178.193.2 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Here is a comparison with a historic version from 2009, for what its worth.[1] It does seem to be transcribed with some paraphrasing and some copypasting from that page. Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Doesn't look like a copied article. Some information was similar to the information on website which has been removed since it wasn't properly referenced either.Bcsadhak (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)