Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appaji
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PROD on this article was removed without any rationale, the concern being "Biased, and very much in need of references to establish whether the claims to notability are true." It was later re-prodded with "undocumented claims for spiritual power" but I thought it best to take it here. I stand by both concerns. - Zeibura (Talk) 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no references. Notability is not established by any means. Fails WP:BIO and WP:Notability. - KNM Talk 18:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tone of the article is very un-Wikipedia. There are many unsupported claims and the article is certainly not WP:NPOV. WWGB 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:RS, WP:V all fail here, and has major WP:NPOV issues and reads like a vanity article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete origional research--SefringleTalk 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete "is one of the greatest spiritual leaders the world has ever seen, a Satguru who strives untiringly for the welfare of the universe" - one of the worst POV instances I've seen. Bigdaddy1981 23:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That second prod was mine, but I think this should run the full time to see if there are refs. Whoever unprodded the article would have been wiser to have looked for them while it was on hold there. That's the purpose of prod. DGG 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd already looked for refs and found none other than a few passing references when I prodded it the first time. Because the prod had been removed without any improvement, I thought sending it here was a more fail-proof solution. - Zeibura (Talk) 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as per above. No assertion of NPOV notability, with sources. What's the term for spam, cruft, vanity, etc.? Bearian 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Unsourced Vanispamcruftisement. Edward321 03:34, 30 June 2007 (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.