- 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. Consensus is clearly to keep here, regardless of whether appearance on the main page should play a factor. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama ( talk) 16:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Silence Day
- Silence Day ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba and self-sources. Notability isn't inherited.
Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.
This t/p thread may provide some backgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, sourced and an important religious holiday for those involved, and part of a good Baba collection on Wikipedia. This is one of many pages on Baba that are under a blitz-type deletion nomination process which, happily, isn't hidden but openly communicated about in the noms and comments. As on the other pages I've found, and I don't have time to find them all so ask that all of these nominations be removed per their obvious bias and not an attempt to build an encyclopedia, I am sad to have to even say that I am not in a Baba cult or a member of any related organization, just an editor who has found an attempt to remove much of the subject matter of a notable individual.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 15:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your insightful commentary.Now, please provide sources about the topic other than his hagiographic biographies, which ought to cover even the trivialest of Meher-Baba stuff in a grand manner. ~ Winged Blades Godric 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment "...about the topic other than his hagiographic biographies, which ought to cover even the trivialest of Meher-Baba stuff in a grand manner"... is the nominator sure about what they are saying here, or is it all part of a subjective and highly biased image they have about certain topics. Evidently, "hagiographic" is just net sarcasm, as there are no saints involved, neither are these biographies written in any non factual manner.
Hoverfish
Talk 19:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's pretty good old common sense.Any biography of any subject will cover a lot of events in his/her life in quite details.Do you think all such events deserve an encyclopedic article? Coverage in biographies can be only used to bolster up the verifiability of an article, only after it has been proved that the event is notable enough, courtesy it's coverage in independent sources.
~ Winged Blades
Godric 04:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- If this event is not notable, how come and it is mentioned in
dailyasianage.com or
historykey.com are they Baba affiliated?
Hoverfish
Talk 20:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- You need to evaluate reliability better.HistoryKey is not reliable stuff and covers the event in all but a small paragraph.And, the piece in DailyAsianAge is an user-generated blog.Sigh...... ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- If this event is not notable, how come and it is mentioned in
dailyasianage.com or
historykey.com are they Baba affiliated?
Hoverfish
Talk 20:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's pretty good old common sense.Any biography of any subject will cover a lot of events in his/her life in quite details.Do you think all such events deserve an encyclopedic article? Coverage in biographies can be only used to bolster up the verifiability of an article, only after it has been proved that the event is notable enough, courtesy it's coverage in independent sources.
~ Winged Blades
Godric 04:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment "...about the topic other than his hagiographic biographies, which ought to cover even the trivialest of Meher-Baba stuff in a grand manner"... is the nominator sure about what they are saying here, or is it all part of a subjective and highly biased image they have about certain topics. Evidently, "hagiographic" is just net sarcasm, as there are no saints involved, neither are these biographies written in any non factual manner.
Hoverfish
Talk 19:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note to closer, as user:Dazedbythebell notes, this page has appeared featured on Wikipedia's Main Page ten times, on July 10, 2007, July 10, 2008, July 10, 2009, July 10, 2010, July 10, 2011, July 10, 2012, July 10, 2013, July 10, 2014, July 10, 2015, and July 10, 2016. This in-Wikipedia recognition shows that it is real, and apparently, given this and Hoverfish's cites above, very notable. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep on the basis of what Randy Kryn observed, which I ignored previously, I agree that the in-Wikipedia recognition and mention signifies notability and acceptance by the community as such. Hoverfish Talk 15:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep This and Amartithi are the only two seriously observed religious holidays among followers of Meher Baba the world over. Dazedbythebell ( talk) 15:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment--Seriously, WP's mainpage has been witness to a lot of crap.Recognition by WPs editorial community as a mainpage mention is immaterial. ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- "a lot of crap"? Sewer talk serves nothing but the sewer. Anyway, so maybe Wikipedia made a huge mistake by putting this article on its main page in 2008. And phew, someone should have caught it and done-their-worse to it back then, because somehow it got back there in 2009. Then, Lo and behold, it slipped through again in 2010, and by that time surely some eagle-eyed Wikipedian would have seen "the crap" floating by. But no! They did it again in 2011, and, goddess forbid, it arrived back (on schedule) in 2012. The barricades were manned and womened, the Wikipedia tanks rolled down the street, but somehow it snuck back (through a side entrance?) in 2013. That was the last straw. Jimbo Wales laid the prone body of Larry Sanger in the path of the page, but Sanger, he got up to make a phone call, and wham, out of nowhere, it again made an appearance on the main page in 2014. Restraining orders flew, ducks and geese and all kinds of wildfowl were thrown at it, and a call to the authorities gave all a sense of safety...but this time, from the sky!, it parachuted in and again appeared on the main page in 2015. Much wailing and tearing of clothes. 300 trained Wikipedians were recruited, gangs of wikitoughs stood guard with clubs and keyboards, but alas, somehow, and nobody knows exactly how, this article again appeared on the main page in 2016. Blasphemy again reigned, and pigs flew. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Appearance on the Main Page itself is not a reason to keep or delete a page (e.g. Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/The Lying Student which appeared as DYK). Please focus arguments not on what previously happened but on whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Also consider whether merging/redirecting to Meher Baba per WP:ATD is a possible solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Appearance on the Main Page itself is not a reason to keep or delete a page (e.g. Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/The Lying Student which appeared as DYK). Please focus arguments not on what previously happened but on whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Also consider whether merging/redirecting to Meher Baba per WP:ATD is a possible solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- A relisting didn't seem warranted, a clear Keep or No consensus seems to have been achieved. Maybe one appearance on the main page isn't a determinative reason to Keep, but nine in a row? That's quite the run. Your note above seems to be joining in the discussion, not just relisting. This is a major holiday for the adherents of this fellow, as described in the thorough analysis and comments above.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm....Randy, I guess that everybody is damn hell-bent on deleting these Meher-Baba stuff:) Alas, what can you do all-alone rather than phrase some exotic rhetorics, as just above?!But, trying to bring some reliable sources covering the topic non-trivially might provide you with some impetus, in the aspect.Oh, and these days people are getting Tbanned from XfDs for a lot many reasons.Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric 13:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sources added from The Telegraph of 10 July 2011 and the University of Chicago Journal Signs and Society. I added The Telegraph reference to the articles lead. This is a good and reputable source. Also added a reference to the page from the University of Chicago Journal Signs and Society.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Opinion-columns from guest-writers do not lend to notability. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - the latter of those sources doesn't specifically aid the article's independent notability, but the original, as well as the other sources available do. I feel there is sufficient coverage (and probably much more in other languages) for this to be an independent article. Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:45, 18 May 2018 (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.
- 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. Consensus is clearly to keep here, regardless of whether appearance on the main page should play a factor. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama ( talk) 16:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Silence Day
- Silence Day ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba and self-sources. Notability isn't inherited.
Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.
This t/p thread may provide some backgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, sourced and an important religious holiday for those involved, and part of a good Baba collection on Wikipedia. This is one of many pages on Baba that are under a blitz-type deletion nomination process which, happily, isn't hidden but openly communicated about in the noms and comments. As on the other pages I've found, and I don't have time to find them all so ask that all of these nominations be removed per their obvious bias and not an attempt to build an encyclopedia, I am sad to have to even say that I am not in a Baba cult or a member of any related organization, just an editor who has found an attempt to remove much of the subject matter of a notable individual.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 15:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your insightful commentary.Now, please provide sources about the topic other than his hagiographic biographies, which ought to cover even the trivialest of Meher-Baba stuff in a grand manner. ~ Winged Blades Godric 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment "...about the topic other than his hagiographic biographies, which ought to cover even the trivialest of Meher-Baba stuff in a grand manner"... is the nominator sure about what they are saying here, or is it all part of a subjective and highly biased image they have about certain topics. Evidently, "hagiographic" is just net sarcasm, as there are no saints involved, neither are these biographies written in any non factual manner.
Hoverfish
Talk 19:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's pretty good old common sense.Any biography of any subject will cover a lot of events in his/her life in quite details.Do you think all such events deserve an encyclopedic article? Coverage in biographies can be only used to bolster up the verifiability of an article, only after it has been proved that the event is notable enough, courtesy it's coverage in independent sources.
~ Winged Blades
Godric 04:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- If this event is not notable, how come and it is mentioned in
dailyasianage.com or
historykey.com are they Baba affiliated?
Hoverfish
Talk 20:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- You need to evaluate reliability better.HistoryKey is not reliable stuff and covers the event in all but a small paragraph.And, the piece in DailyAsianAge is an user-generated blog.Sigh...... ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- If this event is not notable, how come and it is mentioned in
dailyasianage.com or
historykey.com are they Baba affiliated?
Hoverfish
Talk 20:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's pretty good old common sense.Any biography of any subject will cover a lot of events in his/her life in quite details.Do you think all such events deserve an encyclopedic article? Coverage in biographies can be only used to bolster up the verifiability of an article, only after it has been proved that the event is notable enough, courtesy it's coverage in independent sources.
~ Winged Blades
Godric 04:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment "...about the topic other than his hagiographic biographies, which ought to cover even the trivialest of Meher-Baba stuff in a grand manner"... is the nominator sure about what they are saying here, or is it all part of a subjective and highly biased image they have about certain topics. Evidently, "hagiographic" is just net sarcasm, as there are no saints involved, neither are these biographies written in any non factual manner.
Hoverfish
Talk 19:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note to closer, as user:Dazedbythebell notes, this page has appeared featured on Wikipedia's Main Page ten times, on July 10, 2007, July 10, 2008, July 10, 2009, July 10, 2010, July 10, 2011, July 10, 2012, July 10, 2013, July 10, 2014, July 10, 2015, and July 10, 2016. This in-Wikipedia recognition shows that it is real, and apparently, given this and Hoverfish's cites above, very notable. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep on the basis of what Randy Kryn observed, which I ignored previously, I agree that the in-Wikipedia recognition and mention signifies notability and acceptance by the community as such. Hoverfish Talk 15:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep This and Amartithi are the only two seriously observed religious holidays among followers of Meher Baba the world over. Dazedbythebell ( talk) 15:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment--Seriously, WP's mainpage has been witness to a lot of crap.Recognition by WPs editorial community as a mainpage mention is immaterial. ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- "a lot of crap"? Sewer talk serves nothing but the sewer. Anyway, so maybe Wikipedia made a huge mistake by putting this article on its main page in 2008. And phew, someone should have caught it and done-their-worse to it back then, because somehow it got back there in 2009. Then, Lo and behold, it slipped through again in 2010, and by that time surely some eagle-eyed Wikipedian would have seen "the crap" floating by. But no! They did it again in 2011, and, goddess forbid, it arrived back (on schedule) in 2012. The barricades were manned and womened, the Wikipedia tanks rolled down the street, but somehow it snuck back (through a side entrance?) in 2013. That was the last straw. Jimbo Wales laid the prone body of Larry Sanger in the path of the page, but Sanger, he got up to make a phone call, and wham, out of nowhere, it again made an appearance on the main page in 2014. Restraining orders flew, ducks and geese and all kinds of wildfowl were thrown at it, and a call to the authorities gave all a sense of safety...but this time, from the sky!, it parachuted in and again appeared on the main page in 2015. Much wailing and tearing of clothes. 300 trained Wikipedians were recruited, gangs of wikitoughs stood guard with clubs and keyboards, but alas, somehow, and nobody knows exactly how, this article again appeared on the main page in 2016. Blasphemy again reigned, and pigs flew. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Appearance on the Main Page itself is not a reason to keep or delete a page (e.g. Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/The Lying Student which appeared as DYK). Please focus arguments not on what previously happened but on whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Also consider whether merging/redirecting to Meher Baba per WP:ATD is a possible solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Appearance on the Main Page itself is not a reason to keep or delete a page (e.g. Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/The Lying Student which appeared as DYK). Please focus arguments not on what previously happened but on whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Also consider whether merging/redirecting to Meher Baba per WP:ATD is a possible solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- A relisting didn't seem warranted, a clear Keep or No consensus seems to have been achieved. Maybe one appearance on the main page isn't a determinative reason to Keep, but nine in a row? That's quite the run. Your note above seems to be joining in the discussion, not just relisting. This is a major holiday for the adherents of this fellow, as described in the thorough analysis and comments above.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm....Randy, I guess that everybody is damn hell-bent on deleting these Meher-Baba stuff:) Alas, what can you do all-alone rather than phrase some exotic rhetorics, as just above?!But, trying to bring some reliable sources covering the topic non-trivially might provide you with some impetus, in the aspect.Oh, and these days people are getting Tbanned from XfDs for a lot many reasons.Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric 13:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sources added from The Telegraph of 10 July 2011 and the University of Chicago Journal Signs and Society. I added The Telegraph reference to the articles lead. This is a good and reputable source. Also added a reference to the page from the University of Chicago Journal Signs and Society.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Opinion-columns from guest-writers do not lend to notability. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - the latter of those sources doesn't specifically aid the article's independent notability, but the original, as well as the other sources available do. I feel there is sufficient coverage (and probably much more in other languages) for this to be an independent article. Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:45, 18 May 2018 (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.