Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guruji Maharaj

: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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

=[[:Guruji Maharaj]]=

:{{la|Guruji Maharaj}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guruji_Maharaj Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Guruji Maharaj}})

Previous WP:PROD was contested by page creator. Unambiguous violation of WP:NOTPROMO. Opinion pieces about non-notable religious figures do not belong on Wikipedia. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Now that I've cleaned up all the references to Wikipedia, Britannica, etc. the article is not actually that bad as an article about a minor religious figure, except that it doesn't have any references to independent sources for verifiability, let alone notability. If the creator could provide some news articles about Guruji Maharaj, that would help.Jahaza (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete Most of the sources are completely unreliable and not independent such as organization websites, Wikipedia and Wiki-clone sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

::Comment: it's kind of irritating to see someone say that the sourcing includes Wikipedia when I spent a whole bunch of time removing all the "citations" to Wikipedia.Jahaza (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

:::I realize that I mistook Reference 1 as a link to another Wikipedia article. I now realize that Reference 1, which is cited 4 times, is a link to a section of this very article about and citing a work written by the article's subject. The other sources are still not-reliable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

::::Apologies, was annoyed for non-wikipedia reasons when I wrote that comment.Jahaza (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Jahaza}} no worries. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG and looks similar to this Afd. Abishe (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete - violates WP:SIGCOV; basing a bio on primary sources is akin to WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2020 (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.