Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Nithyananda (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. (WP:Non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swami_Nithyananda[edit]

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

1. Almost 100% of information in this article is fraudulent. The man runs a cult, disguised as a religious/spiritual organization. The US court found his organization guilty of fraud in 2012 - http://nithyananda-cult.blogspot.com/2012/07/verdict-guilty-nithyananda-swamis.html He has been accused of sexual assault - http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-29/chennai/34163402_1_nithyananda-aarthi-rao-disciple And a child's organization is now looking into his self-licensed educational organization in India where cases or beating children with sticks are suspected to be taking place - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/367261/nithyananda-ashram-scanner-child-rights.html

2. If you look at the edits made to said Wikipedia article, you will see many instances by this self-styled godman's disciples to sneak promotional materials into the entry. They are repeatedly being deleted, but their organization is notorious for trying to fix the "guru's" damaged reputation with a flood of positive press releases they keep on creating.

E.g., look at the edits by Jaya malini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jaya_malini , they are an attempt to remove as much subjective info about the cult as possible and to sneak in as much praise about the foundation as she can.

For example, take a look at the edit by Jaya malini on November. Her reason for the edit is "important confession in a well publicized magazine" . And what does she reference as proof? This (be prepared to laugh) - http://www.firstpost.com/india/nithyananda-says-he-is-beyond-gender-incapable-of-alleged-sexual-acts-355337.html

There is so much more that is wrong with this organization. However, it still continues to operate. The worst part is that Google now takes information from Wikipedia and shows it up on the front page with a big image this person doesn't deserve.

A group of people (from the US) whose lives were ruined by this fraudulent organization started this website http://nithyananda-cult.blogspot.com/, but there are tons of others. AlexandraFiesGT888 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is crazy to point to a random blog as evidence of fraud. If you look at these documents http://www.scribd.com/doc/109327720/Aarthi-Rao-Paramahamsa-Nithyananda-Medical-Report-English that have been issued by the US court of Michigan and accepted by the high court in Bangalore as evidence in this case you can see that the person accusing him of rape Arti Rao is a carrier of highly contagious STDs that she has been having for more than 10 years and that his medical records don't show these. Also the person who charged Nithyananda of homoseual abuse is himself serving 5 years imprisonment in a Washington state prison for Child abuse which he was trying to escape from using this case. It is easy in India to place charges on anyone. Even Rahul Gandhi - has a charge against him. But one doesn't being his biography saying the "rape-accused politician". One must understand that as per Indian law a person is considered innocent unless convicted by a court. Creating a blog with accusations is not considered a conviction. Jayendra Saraswathi - the head of another ancient mutt in India - was similarly falsely charged of murder 10 years ago and recently acquitted of all charges. Wikipedia must take care and keep this principle of the Indian law in mind when writing these articles and avoid being abusive based on random charges. Unfortunately the current article reeks of media trial - which is becoming so common today in India - and wikiepdia doesn't seem to have used any judgement to show this and instead uses these very media as evidence instead of relying on the more reliable court accepted documents.. Acnaren (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Acnaren. I just studied your Wikipedia talk page. It looks like another user has already warned against vandalizing Wikipedia articles, to be more specific, against deleting any criticism other people add to the entry about Swami Nithyananda. Your bias is obvious. If you were paying attention, you would see that I reference a number of sources in the nomination, not just a "random blog". It's a blog by people who had been ripped-off by Nithyananda in the past. Your point of view on the Aarathi Rao rape case so echoes what the accused number 1 have had to say. For anyone interested to know more about what happened to this video, here is a relevant link to an interview made by a news channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdxrDH0iKxQ By the way, perhaps I should also mention that all the books Nithyanada claims he has "authored" were written by his ex marketing manager, Lenin Karuppan, (according to what Lenin said http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp8v76pIKXA). Why is Lenin his ex manager? Because he is the one who exposed the fraudulent organization. AlexandraFiesGT888 (talk)

Snow Keep Invalid nomination, as nominator's only argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, I doubt you have followed the links provided together with my arguments. Otherwise, you wouldn't say I'm doing it "just because I don't like it".AlexandraFiesGT888 (talk)
Keep The nomination itself contains more than enough evidence to establish notability. If the article is poorly written, that's not an AfD issue. De Guerre (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Jinkinson and De Guerre and even through the subject is a controversial religious figure clearly passes WP:GNG and is clearly Verifiable. Very wide coverage about him ,his organization and religious activities.WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not reason to delete. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above comments regarding notability. So the article should be there. But I would also suggest that the article be semi-protected in order to prevent continued self-promotion and vandalism. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 17:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the article could at least be semi-protected, that would be at least something. I'd urge editors to verify any links provided as "evidence". You will be likely to find that not a single respectable edition in India or abroad has ever written anything positive about Nithyananda. The only positive freedback one finds about this person on the Internet has been created by his followers. Regards. AlexandraFiesGT888 (talk)
Keep The deletion nomination is one that should lead to the article being nominated for protection, not deletion. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, ACNaren and I are indeed volunteers with Nithyananda Mission and represent a thought that should be represented. Deletion of this post would be unfairly denying us of this forum. Let the thought accommodation persist following the traditions of Wikipedia. 01:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Jaya Malini.

Jaya Malini, Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion (read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum and Wikipedia:PROMOTION). It is an encyclopedia containing facts, and hence it deserves to have article on notable people, both famous and infamous (that later in this case in my opinion). For example, it also has an article on the serial killer Ted Bundy. Also, since you are directly related to the person/organization, you should read the guideline on conflict of interest in editing Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 15:46, 13 December 2013 (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.