Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhagwanji

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 no consensus. It appears that deletion is being argued on the basis of content rather than notability. The bar for WP:TNT is quite high, and I don't think it is met here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwanji[edit]

[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)

This article has been around since and worked on by many editors. It has also seen a lot of edit warring. What we’ve ended up with isn’t an encyclopaedia article any more. It’s a hugely detailed and largely unsourced mass of POV material supporting the theory that a dead guru was in fact Subhas Chandra Bose living incognito. The sources suggest that there is a notable topic somewhere under all of this but I think this article is now so irredeemably bad that it’s time to consider WP:TNT. It has been redirected several times and moved back into mainspace several times, so I think we need a consensus on what to do. Mccapra (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest the article be kept with a neutral POV. Two official government inquiry commissions have probed this matter, and several well known personalities have spoken about him. So the article should stay on merit, but should not be biased. -- -- Xrie (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is enough coverage about Gumnami Baba in WP:RS, one of the latest being[1]. It may be appropriately tagged with different maintenance tags. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be tagged, but will that help? A clean start would be better. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing my article. I'd request not to delete my article outright. This is my 1st article in wikipedia. I've done extensive research on this topic.

Please help me improve the page Deshnayak (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2020 (UCT)

I've added some more citations and also added them throughout the article. This article has been written from scratch and presents different POV on this topic, while not being biased. Hasn't lent anything from the articles published before in wiki. As this topic is still relevant, being covered in media regularly and may lead to another probe in future, I believe this article can be kept in Wiki for readers to have a quick understanding about the background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deshnayak (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lack of citations isn’t the problem with this article, indeed it probably cites anything anyone has ever said about the topic. The problem is that by doing so we have a POV essay and not a neutral encyclopaedia article. Mccapra (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, fork of Death of Subhas Chandra Bose § Legends of Bose's survival. Any salvagable material in this article belongs in the article on the Death of Subhas Chandra Bose. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,This article is about a person called Bhagwanji, who is still revered by many. The article doesn't try to prove that he was in fact Subhash Chandra Bose, but discusses from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV about claims from certain sections who link him with Subhash Chandra Bose. It highlights the life of Bhagwanji and also delves into the intriguing legal procedure gaining lot of attention in WP:RS. Merging this with Death of Subhas Chandra Bose § Legends of Bose's survival, will drop lot of content and make the rest irrelevant. Please read the full article and help me improve it.--Deshnayak (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think there is a notable article on this subject, but this article is a complete mess. It is a mixture of hagiography, conjecture, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Clean up would take more effort than WP:TNT. I agree with Mccapra a clean start (in Drafts) would be the best way forward. // Timothy :: talk 23:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - I just reverted a major edit by the article creator - I'm not sure if that made it more or less NPOV (and I don't agree that it meets our NPOV policy), but it made major changes in sourced text, deleted text with no explanation, and used the conspiracy theorist Anuj Dhar as a source. It's too much of a mess to salvage. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks Timothy for reviewing my article. I've tried to remove some text which might have been considered WP:OR. I've carefully tried to keep the article free of any conjecture or POV. The man is notable as UP Government is going to set up a museum to preserve his items and also the High Court has termed his items as national asset. No conspiracy theory has been described any where in the article. The content is purely based on news reports from WP:RS, judicial verdicts and statements. Please let me know.--Deshnayak (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deshnayak: please change the start of your remarks from ‘keep’ to ‘comment’ as you’ve already cast an !vote. Mccapra (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy (and a bit of a note to the closer) - as with most of the non-keeps, I also feel that notability is present. In cases such as these, it usually makes more sense to userfy so the still-active creator has a copy they can use if they want to construct a new version of. I'd grant a copy of it to the creator if they asked, so in that case, userfying seems to make more sense than deleting (and a number of comments with the !deletes seem to suggest agreement). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I know the ground for userfying/deletion? I've carefully tried to incorporate all review comments made so far. What do I need to do more to improve the content? How can I bring it back from userfied content?--Deshnayak (talk) 16:04, 23 November 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.