This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sirs,This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvind_Iyer was nominated for Deletion in 2014 and the result consensus was Keep.However,the administrator is no longer active and I would like for this deletion to be reviewed by someone as in my opinion the subject of this page has low notability and the sources are not credible considering that most of them point to dead links.In my opinion the page needs to be deleted.Kindly review.thank You (Intelbot22 (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
@Robert McClenon: If you look at the page history of Arvind Iyer you'll find a whole string of single purpose accounts that are obviously related to this one (compare their edits and edit summaries...), doing nothing but trying to downplay the subject of the article and/or getting the article deleted... Thomas.W talk11:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... my first inclination would be to leave it deleted since apparently Iyer e-mailed CorporateM and specifically asked for the article to be deleted. He seems to only be known for one film (at least at first glance, given the sourcing in the article) so he doesn't seem to be so famous that we'd ignore a person's request to be removed from Wikipedia. It's possible that this account might have been Iyer or someone he knew arguing on his behalf. Still, it would be a very good idea for CorporateM to get Iyer to send OTRS a ticket verifying his identity and that he wants to vanish, just so we can say that we did verify that everything was on the up and up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)11:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
What is the point to this comment? The article is currently deleted. This project talk page isn't the place for discussing whether a deletion was proper. Either file a real request for deletion review, or let the matter drop. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
To clarify: In 2014 an AFD had a unanimous KEEP vote and was kept. In 2016, the second AFD had a unanimous DELETE vote and was deleted. No admin ever closed an AFD in a manner that was counter to consensus. CorporateM (Talk) 13:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
No issue with the close as based on the AFD, and no dog in the fight. Just noticed the comments here suggesting a history of bad faith edits/noms of a page that should be retained (not considered at the AFD) but that was successfully deleted a month later. Probably should have written "confirm" rather than "review". ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~06:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Valid ref. links to undelete 'Anandmurti Gurumaa' page
This is the reference to the wikipedia page of "Anandmurti gurumaa" which has recently been deleted following the deletion debate at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anandmurti_Gurumaa . I had requested to resume this page,in response to which I have been directed to contact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#anandmurti_gurumaa) and to this page via User:JJMC89 too.
I would like to bring to your kind notice that the reason mentioned in the debate is lack of independent resources and dead links, whereas lot of sources and independent links exist featuring work of Anandmurti gurumaa as a renowned Indian spiritual master. Moreover these reliable links belong to national newspapers like Times of India, DNA, The Hindu, India today, Amar Ujala etc.
Below are the sources for your reference
Tedx talk: [1]
(Times of India) Speaking tree: [2]
DNA Newspaper: [3]
The Hindu Newspaper: [4]
The Hindu: [5]
Amar Ujala Newspaper: [6]
Wikiquote: [7]
Verified Facebook page: [8]
Youtube channel: [9]
Wikipedia other pages reference: [10]
BBC News: [11]
Interview: [12]
BBC Interview: [13]
Interview: [14]
Red Fm Vancouver ( Canada) Interview: [15]
Interview: [16]
Gurumaa with swami ramdev in an event: [17]
MTV: [18]
Life positive: [19]
Life positive: "[20]"
Life positive: [21]
Life positive: [22]
Life positive: [23]
Life positive: [24]
Life positive: [25]
Official Website: [26]
Life positive: [27]
Life positive: [28]
Life positive: [29]
Life positive: [30]
Hungama: [31]
Life positive: [32]
Karmapa: [33]
Karmapa: [34]
Karmapa: "[35]"
Karmapa: [36]
Wikipedia page references: [37]
Wikipedia page references: [38]
Wikipedia page references: [39]
Wikipedia page references: [40]
Wikipedia page references: [41]
India Today Newspaper: [42]
PS: This information has also been posted to other admins of the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.94.116.18 (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
List of references. Click show for details.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You would do well to strip out the YouTube/Wikipedia/Wikiquote/Facebook links then we can have a look at what is left. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Here are the sources left after removing the aforementioned links:
These links all appear to be primary. Some of them are bio pages that appear to have been written by Gurumaa herself like this one where it's hosted on a website devoted to just getting people followers, which wouldn't be seen as a sign of notability on Wikipedia. Simply being listed as a performer, guru, or other type of person doesn't mean that someone is notable as these are considered to be routine database listings. Others are links to places where Gurumaa has written, but writing for publications does not give automatic notability. I'm not going to bother going into depth on these. There were a ton of links from Life Positive, which came up dead
This one is in another language and I'm not sure of the source, but this looks like it might have been written by Gurumaa. Even if it's not a run through Google Translate shows that she's not the focus of the article.
non primary
These are the non-primary sources. I had to leave out the YT interviews since some of them looked like they might have been conducted by outlets Wikipedia wouldn't consider to be reliable or in cases like this one it's not uploaded by the media outlet and is instead uploaded by someone else, either Gurumaa or someone else that might not hold the rights to the interview. Also note that participating in an event does not guarantee notability since it's generally expected that people who interact with the public will likely show up at various events.
Hindu This mentions Gurumaa, but it doesn't go into a huge huge amount of depth.
The Hindu. This looks to be a review of something she did, so this would actually be usable as a RS.
India Today. This is pretty much a photo with a caption. I'm aware that India newpapers have a big tendency to write only short articles, but this is a bit light even for them.
Life Positive. There were a ton of these but offhand these don't look like they'd be usable. They also came up as dead links so I had to run these through the Wayback Machine. In the case of this one it looked like this was a case of people writing in about various gurus, which would make these WP:SPS since reader letters almost never have any sort of editorial oversight.
Kagyu Office. I'm unsure about this, but this looks like it might be primary. It's not really a good strong independent seeming source, to be honest. In the case of this link, she's only briefly mentioned.
I have worked on your feedback and have researched few primary sources on the internet. The page of the person 'Anandmurti Gurumaa' was around more than 10 years old but why that her page was deleted.
The references shared by me are also considered on different wiki page for eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaggi_Vasudev#References
I believe below references will help you to undelete the page.
1. The Hindu Newspaper [1]
2. The Hindu [2]
3. Amar Ujala Newspaper [3]
4. Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’ [4]
5. Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’ [5]
6. Tedx talk [6]
7. Karmapa [7]
8. Article in DNA Newspaper [8]
9. Article in DNA Newspaper [9]
10. Article in DNA Newspaper [10]
11. Article in DNA Newspaper [11]
12. Article in DNA Newspaper [12]
13. Karmapa [13]
14. Karmapa [14]
15. Karmapa [15]
16. Life positive [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.253.202 (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Much of this is material written by Anandmurti Gurumaa and is not useful in demonstrating that she meets the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia. What is needed is significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Who has written about Anandmurti Gurumaa in some detail in a source that has nothing to do with her, has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
