Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nityananda sex scandal

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. Consensus is clear that this should be deleted, especially with the BLP issues —SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nityananda sex scandal[edit]

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

As it stands, the article is an attack page that does not mention that the video in question was fake. There is an alternative longer version which is heavily based on unreliable sources and effectively is a propaganda piece for the Swami. While the incident did create a lot of news coverage at that time, all available versions of the Wikipedia page are WP:BLP violations. If Wikipedia should have content about this incident, the articles on Sun TV (India) and Swami Nithyananda would be the proper places; this article and its content are unsalvageable. Huon (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See for example here for a source confirming the video was fake. I should have given the source for that statement right away. Huon (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being non-notable tabloid, but that source does not claim the video was a hoax. The article has been gutted so many times that it's not really an article anymore. Jergling (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Forensic tests later found the video to be morphed." So at the very least it was manipulated. This news report explicitly calls it "fake". Huon (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article and renamed it (i messed the page up while renaming btw, would be nice if someone can fix it) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashaanktulsyan_moved_page_Nityananda_sex_scandal_to_Aarti_Rao_Sun_TV_Extortion_Scandal:_The_title_is_misleading_and_the_entire_article_is_based_on_tabloid_material._See_talk_page_for_details Please see if this page can be kept in wikipedia. Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shashaanktulsyan:, please don't move the page any further until this deletion discussion is over. Potentially controversial renames must be discussed. See WP:RM#CM. clpo13_(talk) 19:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a total and unfixable wreck of a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Modify and retain - Please see the current version Nityananda sex scandal. The title may be changed and the article may be edited to meet WP:BLP and WP:NPOV etc. If we delete the article there is no source unbiased information on this topic on the internet. Sun TV (India), Aaj Tak, NDTV and several news channels have broadcast and uploaded a total of more than 10,000 hrs (search youtube for 'Nithyananda scandal') of false news and a total of more than 2,100 false news articles (search google and take a total count of news articles on scandal by Indian media houses). For example, in Youtube alone, a single false news clip by Aaj Tak on this topic has been viewed more than 20,000,000 times. There has been zero coverage by any media house when the case was squashed by the court, or when the "rape" victim was fined 1/2 million dollar for false statement. The reason why media houses have not shared the true news is because they are involved in extortion and many cases filed by Nithyananda against them are pending in various courts. Obviously nobody will write against his own channel. If Wikipedia doesn't retain a neutral version, naturally people will continue to refer to the false news which has been around the internet since 7 years. Please refer to the article for all sources/references/citations on the above points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashaanktulsyan (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 07:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the allegations are agreed to be false, and this is an unacceptable BLP attack article. There's already a mention on Nithyananda which is sufficient, so there's nothing to merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to be at the point where WP:GNG and WP:BLP intersect. Apparent WP:RS coverage of a completely false/hoax attack is admittedly now A Thing (for example, the Pizzagate nonsense). That said, even in those cases where it does rise to such coverage, BLP should take precedence and mention of the false event on the subject's page is probably enough. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modify and retain There is an excellent point brought up. The only publicly circulating content on Google/YouTube/News companies that creates the scandal are explicitly false and viewed hundreds of millions on times. Wikipedia has the opportunity to be the lone source of the truth for an extremely highly cited scandal. Very important to keep. Rurban23 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2016 (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.