Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sliema’s Sri Chinmoy Statue Controversy

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 speedy delete. Because there seem to be few if any non-sock participants in this discussion, we can mostly ignore it and apply WP:G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Chinmoy Giant Statue Controversy). Sandstein 07:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sliema’s Sri Chinmoy Statue Controversy[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}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Re-creation of Sri Chinmoy Giant Statue Controversy which had been deleted after discussion BostonMensa (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has nothing to do with Sri Chinmoy Giant Statue Controversy, and there is a controversy regarding the Statue in Malta because it still exist, like other controversies that can be found on wikipedia List of monument and memorial controversies in the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriSriSriPatrick (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G5. For the same reasons elaborated in WP:Articles for deletion/Sri Chinmoy Giant Statue Controversy. Article creator has been blocked as a confirmed sock (and for creating attack pages). Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC); edited 02:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender should be banned from wikipedia for sugar coating the Sri Chinmoy Wikipedia Page which has become a promotional page for sri chinmoy .org — Preceding unsigned comment added by OeilDuCyclope (talk • contribs) 08:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not suitable article. Per WP: CSECTION, there shouldn't be an article devoted to criticism or controversy. Also article is heavily slanted to promoting critical view. Finarfin77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, this Controversy should be kept , there are controversies for many statues on Wikipedia and people in Malta have not been consulted in the first place, regardless of the accusation against Sir Chin MOY ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrumpyLocust (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC) — GrumpyLocust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i note that the Sri Chinmoy page has no legacy section, that could include a list of memorials etc relating to Chinmoy? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Coolabahapple, you are right , no legacy and NO controversy Section was which removed years ago . Regarding the items I have put on this Controversy entry they are based on facts , I did not made them up . All have been reported in the Maltese press. You can check . Maybe the article is slanted but it is not on purpose . I will try to rephrase them more gently . Besides I am not attacking anyone . I simply try to put more factual data on this Statue issue . — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriSriSriPatrick (talk • contribs) 16:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~added sections for a less slanted view - hope that would be taken into account — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriSriSriPatrick (talk • contribs) 10:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)~~ Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nice compliment a separate article for this event. That might be an option for a world religion or a larger group. But I think the main reason for the creation is to discretize SC and their followers.--Riquix (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is about facts , not opinions and if we look at the facts presented in this proposed entry there are many facts that show that there is a controversy - The other issue we have too is that is is impossible to do anything on the SC Page without having either Riquix or Softlavender jumping in and undoing/rollbacking contributions - don't think even to say anything ( that is backed by facts ) that goes against SC — Preceding unsigned comment added by OeilDuCyclope (talk • contribs) 09:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have similar isssues in Canada ... maybe the scope of the controversy should be broadened ? like Chinmoy Free Statues Controversy or ask softlavender if we can create the Controversies Section in SC Page , as she is the owner of this entry/page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrummyOwl (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — CrummyOwl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: All of the "Keep" !votes on this page are sockpuppets. Softlavender (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin : calling people having different views on the matter 'socketpuppets' is not serious . Weither this page in kept or not there is an issue with this 2 people that have been undoing other contributions for at least one full year . Wikipedia is about facts . — Preceding unsigned comment added by OeilDuCyclope (talk • contribs) 05:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have struck the !votes and comments made by sockpuppets. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for editing. Trifle is I think the user Finarfin77 is also I think a sock puppet is a kind provocateur.--Riquix (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2020 (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.