Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Master (Meher Baba)

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. A Train^talk 09:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Master (Meher Baba)

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

I fail to see much notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba and self-sources.Trivial mentions in related books are located. Notability isn't inherited.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some nackgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, sourced and a notable article, and per noticing that the nominator is coordinating many recent deletion noms and tags within the Baba universe of articles on Wikipedia, thus attempting to "gut" a notable topic here. As with other pages under this deletion blitz, I am sad to say that I must even mention that I am not in a cult about Baba nor belong to any related organization. I'm an editor who is seeing a topic under "attack", with language and talk-page discussions used for this purpose. I would suggest that all of these noms and deletion attempts be removed because of the bias shown in the communications about these pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and congratulations on your finding.Now, please provide the sources, since you've gladly forgot the main criterion of defending the notability of an article.And, you may like to read WP:ILIKEIT.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a dictionary definition bloated by walls of text from self-sourced info. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source already on the page, a book published by Allen & Unwin, a major publishing house, is listed as a citation and reference. Does the nominator not look at and study references of each article he (or she) lists? Please close this nomination as unwarranted. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the part of the book?~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a side-note, have you ever been to AfDs before?~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have been to AfD quite often, and have seen the attempts to deep-six important topics and articles on seemingly a daily basis. Have helped to save quite a few. My reading material is none of your business, thank you. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading material is absolutely my business because, you alone know how you could make a determination of the supported facts et al, without reading the book.I though concede that you might have......
Since you've visited AfDs before, you can do miles better than the newbie-sh pleas of requesting some greater wiki-mortal to close this nomination as unwarranted, even in cases whence other editors have agreed with me.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giving you the benefit of WP:GOODFAITH so as not to add further commentary to this reply. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And the reason to delete this is what? This is an important well-referenced article that many in the religious and new religious field may find extremely helpful. Note this is part of a dozen article sweep of Meher Baba related articles listed for deletion and initiated by two editors on a breathless jihad. I quote one of them here: User_talk:Serial_Number_54129#Walled_garden...: "I'll be attempting unilateral culling(s) and AfD despatches on some of the easier ones but given the amount of established SPAs devoted to the topic, I guess, tearing the wall down is going to be a difficult." Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well-referenced?Sigh......~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Perfect Master is a dab page, this article offers a useful alternate meaning. For the lack of stronger sources, for this and for more articles of this topic blitzkrieg, I repeat that there is a well-known issue of systemic bias on this topic, caused by the very attitude of Meher Baba's followers of not causing publicity as well as by the current trend of the western world to consider spiritual topics as crap. I have agreed with deleting various figures of the Meher Baba saga, but this is a term with explanatory value, so I think its presence in Wikipedia has value for those who care to learn about such matters. Hoverfish Talk 10:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to read WP:ILIKEIT.....Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No sources always equates to no article unless it's in a field whence the presence of systemic bias has been clearly established.And, it may be prudential to note that systemic bias does not equals No media does cover our activities!! We are victims of systematic bias....~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spare me the first plural, please. Hoverfish Talk 10:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edward321 above. I don't see any secondary sources that establish notability per WP:GNG "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My relisting comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beloved God Prayer apply equally here, for the most part.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-All the offline and online references of the article are !independent...Fails WP:GNG — F R ⁺ 10:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reference from a book published by the independent publisher Allen & Unwin is on the page and mentioned in this RM (you may have missed it within the length of the RM). Allen & Unwin, whose lineage was established in the 19th century (the good ol' days), is a known and well-respected publisher. And then I've added another independent source below this comment. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reference added, University of Chicago Journals Signs and Society, Vol. 2 S 1, 2014, a reputable publisher, reputable Journal. Source added to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A research journal hardly adds anything to passage of notability.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you believe research journal articles should be excluded from notable references? WP:ASTONISH and WP:INEEDADRINK. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - More proof of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Hoverfish Talk 17:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "a research journal hardly adds anything". Come on. Nothing in this nomination has persuaded me that this article isn't notable. Keep Egaoblai (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears well referenced enough to meet GNG. --RAN (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2018 (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.