Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Rama Yogi

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Rama Yogi

No evidence of notability of this person provided. No sources listed. You could make the argument that being a "spiritual giant" is a claim of notability, so I'm not going to try to speedy delete it. Anon editors have repeatedly made this article a travesty of NPOV. Failed PROD. eaolson (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the copyvio/advert text from the article. No opinion (yet) on deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete you shouldn't have as it is obviously an advertisement, it is patent original research highly bias, not verified, not notable, doesn't even claim notability, horribly formatted, its junk.Myheartinchile (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's written like an advertisement, its claims of notability are questionable at best, and it has no sources. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM If ever there was a article which is spam this is it. It even gives a phone number to contact the subject. Artene50 (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've removed personal information that shouldn't have been in the article in the first place. It is an advertisement and/or non-notable bio and should be deleted. Whomever included the personal information needs to be made aware that it is against policy/guidelines as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Speedy too An anonymous IP, which just happens to edit on this article, reverted Jaynash2's actions and tried to keep the reference to the phone number here It was countered by another user but this article gives me a bad feeling. I wonder if it will 'pop up' again. Artene50 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2008 (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.