Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U. G. Krishnamurti: Difference between revisions

U. G. Krishnamurti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I don’t think the subject of this article passes our general notability guidelines, due to a lack of independent sources. All of the current references were either written by him, or those that knew him personally. A dilligence search found more of the same, although it’s possible that there are non-english sources that I missed. The article also has a promotional tone in my opinion, but that’s a surmountable problem, should the article survive this discussion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I happened to submit this for speedy deletion at the same time Chess enjoyer was making this nomination, so our apologies for the redundancy. Athanelar (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented out the speedy deletion request. My reasoning had nothing to do with my estimation of the value of the article; it was instead that either the speedy deletion request or this AfD had to go, and that a canceled AfD would bring more confusion than would a canceled speedy request. — Hoary (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entire profile in a decently significant American newspaper [2] PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [3] and [4] [5] (the last2 more of historical interest) PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This book OAleph Book Company, which seems fine?) also has a lengthy profile here [6]. Has an entry in volume 28 of the Encyclopedia of World Biography [7] from Gale Publishing

This was not a particularly long search, this took me less than 20 minutes to find. I’d bet there is more (I can do a lengthier search if this does not satisfy the others here). In conclusion, trim to like 2 paragraphs and Keep. Probably keep on watchlist because Indian guru articles are particularly prone to promotional editing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – well-known ‘anti-guru’, mentioned by Andre van de Braak, professor at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, in his biography “Enlightenment Blues.” Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 05:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn: I can’t access newspapers.com (yet. I’ll be changing that soon!), but I’m convinced that the sources provided by @PARAKANYAA satisfy GNG. Note that another editor, @Athanelar, has !voted for deletion in good faith, so this AFD cannot be closed just yet. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I still think the article should be deleted. G11 provides grounds to delete an article for being primarily promotional even if the subject may be notable, and I still think the article as it stands is entirely fancruft. I’m certainly not willing to take on the task of rewriting it from scratch with actually reliable sources, so unless somebody wants to step up and volunteer for that I think we ought to G11 it and leave it to be rebuilt in the future. Athanelar (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Athanelar, are you saying you want to apply some TNT? I get where you’re coming from (the article is in very poor shape). but deleting it outright feels a bit rash. Why not just stubify it? Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chess enjoyer Well, yes, kind of TNT, but moreso that I think it meets G11 so we should delete it on those grounds.

  I already tried to stubify it, and with the sources currently present there’s literally nothing to draw from for a stub. I’d need to dive into some of the sources linked above to try to write a new stub from that info; which, as I said, I’m personally not willing to do that. If you wanted to, then that’d solve my deletion concern. Athanelar (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This article is 21 years old. That history is worth preserving. What would this add? The reasons at WP:TNT do not apply because there is some acceptable content here. It is also not “exclusively promotional” as mandated by G11, it has basic information that would remain. This article can be rewritten to comply with standards and that you personally do not want to do it is not a deletion rationale. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The “preserving history” argument doesn’t hold, in my opinion. The article, since its creation, has had a promotional tone. As previously noted by other editors, the text reads as if written by one of the subject’s followers. All sources are primary, links to personal blogs, user-generated content, and defunct-unrealiable websites. Even after being flagged for lacking reliable, secondary sources three years ago, no changes have been made to improve citations. Since the text remains largely misleading (calling subject a philosopher for eg.), the page has a history of edit-warring that I’m inclined to believe will continue because more time is being spent on reverting the removal of unsourced text than actually adding reliable sources. Considering that the page is more than a decade old and yet no reliable sources have ever been added despite claims that reliable sources exist, I’m going to go as far as questioning the notability of the subject itself.

I’d also like to note that the page clearly does not adhere to WP:MOS. As is evidenced by the recent dispute, even suggestions regarding the general structure, including headlines, publications, and formatting, are not being taken into consideration in good-faith while persistent back-and-forth continues about even the smallest changes re: subject descriptor. Case in point: No consensus on the talk page was reached about the descriptor and yet the reverts continue by aforementioned editor. The subject has gone from philosopher to orator to anti-guru to now public speaker. Even if someone was willing to take on the task of improving the page, it’s safe to assume that the edit-warring will continue simply because of the refusal to engage with good-faith suggestions.

Reducing the page to a stub will not address any of these issues because eventually the page will be expanded to its original form as it has been countless times before and the content disputes will continue. Baberoothless (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• no changes have been made to improve citations – yes, I did, but you repeatedly removed the sourced info I added;
• Since the text remains largely misleading (calling subject a philosopher for eg.) – smokescreen; they’re no longer called philosopher;
• a history of edit-warring that I’m inclined to believe will continue because more time is being spent on reverting the removal of unsourced text than actually adding reliable sources. – to the pint, given your repeated removal of sourced info;
• The subject has gone from philosopher to orator to anti-guru to now public speaker. – no; the sort dexription and the introductory description that I added stated “anti-guru,” sourced to Andre van de Braak, professor at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, while I changed “occupation” to public speaker, which is what he seems to have earned money with repeatedly. You repeayedly replaced all of this with the vague and unsourced term “contemporary spiritual figure.”
• the refusal to engage with good-faith suggestions – indeed.

Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 12:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of your arguments have been addressed multiple times on the talk page, in addition to the ANI post and the 3RR post. Your conduct on this topic has been incredibly frustrating to deal with. I’m not inclined to continue repeating myself into the ground which I’m starting to realise is your intention.

In conclusion, my original vote on deletion still stands. If we are going to leave this page up, even as a stub, to be worked on by battleground editors like Joshua, we will circle back to the page in its current form in a few years. Thanks! Baberoothless (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you honestly suggesting that regardless of notability we delete every single article that people fight over? Ridiculous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A current content dispute has 0 bearing on the notability of the subject. If we deleted every article where people fight about its content, we would have to delete Donald Trump‘s. “Considering that the page is more than a decade old and yet no reliable sources have ever been added despite claims that reliable sources exist, I’m going to go as far as questioning the notability of the subject itself.” Do you think that the multiple books and news articles I found do not exist? He has entries in multiple encyclopedias on the subject, has multiple news articles about him, magazine articles, etc. Per policy, WP:ARTN it does not matter if the sources are in the article, but that they exist. It is completely possible to write a decent article about this man. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is surely lazy and shoddy, especially on the topic of sourcing, but covers a perfectly relevant figure of the 20th century guru phenom, whom I cannot imagine doesn’t have appropriate references to add. I don’t support deletion as the first option for articles which just need work. —Metalune (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]