Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Premasagar

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 per consensus (closed by non-admin) . RMHED (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Victor Premasagar

Victor Premasagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Appears to be a developed, but still nn-bio article along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. David. I think the K. David article is a more clear cut case for deletion, but scanning through the article's history, it appears that this was the supervisor of the editor who wrote the article. That is merely a case of conflict of interest, rather than an argument in favor of deletion, but this article hardly makes the case that this individual deserves an article even after it was written by someone who worked for him. As near as I can tell, he held some important administrative positions in what amounts to a very minor religion in India. Aside from the positions he held, the article does not assert what he did during that time with those positions to either differentiate himself from anyone else who holds said titles, or make him notable over the long term. Hiberniantears 17:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak delete per nom but I think both cases need to be looked at by someone who knows a bit more. Yes it's well-written, and there are claims to notability. But I'm not totally convinced.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He was moderator (i.e. the leader) of the Church of South India, which has 3.8 million members. Surely that's enough to make him notable? Phil Bridger 12:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Church of South India is a notable institution and he was a notable leader. That said, the article was a horrid advertisement/hagiography of the man when I found it. I adopted it and did some major work. Now the problem is that the clearly conflicted author of the article keeps reverting to his older version (see WP:OWN) which violated numerous wikipedia policies: as I said, it read like an advertisment, used purple text, had CSI on the see line instead of denomination where it belongs, etc. Keep, but monitor closely is my vote. -- SECisek 17:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but monitor closely is my vote as well. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- I note that he merited an obituary in the The Hindu. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • On closer examination, this is a definite keep. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per SECiSek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Years (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - do some more work on it - but should be kept. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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.