Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhileshwaranand

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhileshwaranand

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

Unsourced article with redflag claims; even possibly a hoax. I didn't find any sources verifyng the claims of the article. Note too that the name "Swami Nikhileshwarananad" is relatively common, so not all sources you find on googling refer to this person, and we need to be careful not to create a chimaeric biography. Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete looks like a hoax to me -Drdisque (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

↑No speedy deletion for hoaxes

Delete -- No reliable sources to be found. Yes, it looks like a hoax to me too, but the name comes up frequently on Google. Many of the sites seem to be talking about the same thing as this article. Not that they're reliable sources, but it might be best to avoid labeling it a hoax and deleting it just because of that speculation--Abusing (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, no evidence that this is true, even aside from notability issues. By the way, we can speedy hoaxes sometimes; that's what G3 is for. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it it's blatant vandalism. This is suspected to possibly be a hoax.--Abusing (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax article--Sodabottle (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason why most hoaxes should be AfD'd or prodded is that a reasonable percentage of the suspected ones turn out to be real, but unlikely or unfamiliar, and 2 people are just not enough to see them. Even something self-contradictory on its face may just be badly written, or fancifully embellished, or even vandalized. ."Looks like a hoax to me" is not a safe basis for judging. It might also turn out that something totally absurd is in fact an actual fiction, that might sometimes turn out to be notable. I learned very quickly from a few embarrassing mistakes with these that the extent of my knowledge was considerably more limited than I had thought it was. This particular type of subject is a tricky one, because--on the one hand-- how can a non-specialist tell if it's real? and on the other, it's so absurdly easy to fake. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax or not, the article contains no references and consists of religious claims stated as a fact - it has no place on Wikipedia. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This suggests that this is not a hoax. I have no opinion on notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that book before nominating, but don't think the source is talking about this Nikhileshwasanand. The book is on Tantra and the available snippets say that he returned to domestic life and (if I understand right) reverted to the name Dr. Shrimali. Those details don't match the biography of "our" Nikhileshwaranand. Abecedare (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Abecedare. Nikhileshwaranand is one those generic "Swami" names. More than one could have it. and our swami is said to be 10000 years old. So the gbook swami is not ours.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if real, just not notable as not enough sources can show notability. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unverified, quite aside from some statements that strain credulity. --MelanieN (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[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.