Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohanji

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. While the opinions expressed here are on the face of it fairly evenly split between keep and delete, looking solely at the number of different editors who have put forward policy-based arguments, the arguments for deletion are more convincing. We require evidence of notability, and coverage in reliable sources. This BLP has neither as those in favour of deletion have pointed out. None of the arguments for keeping have a basis in policy. Michig (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanji[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Delete Looks to be a page recreated after a speedy delete. I proposed it for deletion but the deletion was contested. I think that it doesn't meet WP:BIO. TheRingess (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching is awkward given the number of other people named Mohanji, but I'm seeing no evidence that this shipping manager and AuthorHouse author meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real name of Mohanji is P.K. Mohan, and you can find many third party sources online by googling his real name. Zlio2004 (talk)

Comment A quick google search on his real name does not seem to turn up any more reliable sources.TheRingess (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and these do establish that he has indeed worked in shipping management. But employment, and even quotation in newspapers in a job role, does not automatically equate to notability. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is moderated now and highly shortened. He is more a spiritual teacher and charity worker rather than a (was) General manager of a shipping company, which was not sourced properly earlier; now his spiritual / charity face is highlighted in the article. We may keep.-Rayabhari (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find more reliable sources to meet notability criteria at this moment. As a creator of this page I ask for speedy deletion of the Mohanji page until more reliable sources are collected. Thank you. Zlio2004 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Zlio2004[reply]
DeleteRecommended for Speedy delete. I have gone through the previous page and the one in present edited form. After all these edits, The page is left out with no information the page creator wanted to convey. I can understand What the page creator must be going through. It is better not to have a page rather than getting reflected with such remarks which harms the credibility .My request to all the editors is to help and encourage the page creator with more information and what is exactly required . Probably editors with spiritual background would be able to understand the point of view.Nilkanthyengde (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article at the present is fairly neutral and there is nothing that "harms his credibility" as the above user observed. Further, the argument that - what original creater wanted to convey - or what he may be going through - are not important, because, articles of wikipedia are generally encyclopedic supported with reliable sources and encyclopedic information only matters and not what creator feels. (Earlier it was full of flowery language and resembled advertisement) This user has edited/moderated the article with an intention to salvage this AFD and thinks that the moderation efforts are fairly neutral and the article is open/available for further neutral POV editing with reliable sources!-Rayabhari (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eventhough topic is questionable but alas clearly meets wiki GNG criteria , please refer to devita saraf was kept due to long list of newspaper publications Shrikanthv (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Meets the basic criteria. Can be kept. Suggest to add some secondary sources, if possible. -- Bharathiya (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that it meets the basic criteria since it was highly moderated, and should be kept and further edited with third party sources. -- Zlio2004 (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The newspapers have trivial mention of the person. The Hindu does not even mention Mohanji. Other sources are not third-party RS. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Red, I'm simply not seeing enough 3rd party sources with significant coverage to pass the biography guidelines. Unfortunately, the subject will probably have to be the object of a scandal before there will be.21:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRingess (talk • contribs)
Comment The Hindu does mention Mohanji's charitable foundation Ammucare Charitable Trust. -- Zlio2004 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But it doesn't mention him and that's what is relevant to this discussion.TheRingess (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDuring a cursory search on internet regarding spirituality (a hot topic of 2012) I stumbled on the page called World Parliament on Spirituality, Hyderabad (India). There I noticed Mohanji as one amongst many distinguished speakers who are coming on one platform in this year end to discuss about varied topics related to spirituality. Then I decided to learn about the speaker and I got some information through www.speakingtree.com and another third party reference is as follows http://www.wpsconnect.org/speakers.php. I think these are relevant third party links in support of this page. Strongly recommended for Keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuragbais25 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC) — Anuragbais25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Lists of speakers, etc., are not reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. Singularity42 (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I follow blogs of many masters on Speaking Tree eg. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar ,Ashutosh Maharaj Ji and Mohanji. Mohanji recent blog In Search of Precious- 1 inspired me a lot so i searched more about him and found this link http://jolitaasmara.blogspot.in/2011/11/mohanji-path-of-his-heart.html JOLITA KELIAS is Independent Journalist/ Writer/ Author she write about people who make positive difference in the world. This Page is highly recommended for keeping.

Deepali07 (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC) — Deepali07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Blogs, etc., are not reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources given are either not reliable or do not have significant coverage of the subject, and so cannot count towards notability. I can't find any other sources online that would indicate he passes WP:ANYBIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:23, 22 September 2012 (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.