Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Meredith (sannyasin)

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. The "keep" opinions mostly do not engage with Accesscrawl's thorough analysis of the available sources. Sandstein 07:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Meredith (sannyasin)

George Meredith (sannyasin) (edit | 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 don't see any significant coverage necessary for passing WP:GNG. I only see passing mentions which is too less to have a stand alone article. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (disclaimer: article creator). I do admit, this article is severely underdeveloped. However, I think the subject meets notability criteria. There are some challenges to finding sources, as this individual is known by many different names. To those who are conducting notability assessments, please be sure to search using his various identities (Swami Devaraj, Amrito, etc.) Yes, there are many sources with passing mentions, but I believe they add up to significant coverage. Meredith was Osho's personal doctor, and was very involved in Rajneeshpuram. He was the victim of an attempted murder, has remained active within the movement, has written at least two books, and is associated with the Osho International Foundation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Much work remains, but I've at least expanded the one-sentence stub for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still working on it you might want to use the Under Construction template. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, since you've done so much work digging up sources and building the article, could you identify the articles that are most centrally focused on Meredith (by that or any of his names), to make it easier to assess notability? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peteforsyth Here's one from 1988: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22008073/from_lewisham_to_enlightenment/. I'm still checking for clippings under his various aliases. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a great source. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peteforsyth My research is still a work in progress. I admit, this (which has an interview you can ignore, or not) and this are among the best sources so far, and those are not ideal examples. I'm selecting these just from the initial sources used to expand the article, which I found via Google Search. I've not yet searched newspapers archives or other databases. I will say, though, he is mentioned in sourcing over the span of decades, because of his various roles, court cases related to his poisoning and the Rajneesh movement in general, etc. This one is a bit trickier given his many names, various locations of residence, etc. I hope I'm not doing this assessment injustice by sharing these links now, I just wanted to acknowledge your request and share where I'm at currently. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The person has not been the subject of significant discussion in multiple independent sources and meets none of the specialized N guidances. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG. The Guardian article linked above by Grand'mere Eugene is a story exclusively focused on Meredith, from a longstanding international publication. He's covered from several angles by a number of publications spanning a number of years (and in several countries); the ones identified by Another Believer contribute to notability. His book is listed in a bibliography of Rajneeshi texts. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In addition to the Guardian article mentioned above, the book Who Killed Osho has several pages based on Meredith's testimony in 1985, labeling Meredith (Amrito) as a "central figure in Osho's life at the time of his death". See Abhay Vaidya (15 March 2017). Who Killed Osho. Om Books International. pp. 51–53. ISBN 978-93-86410-02-3.. This text has many relevant details of his life, and satisfies GNG. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:Not inherited, at best WP:BLP1E for poison attempt. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Probable Keep. The article had two sources when it was nominated, and has 23 sources now, many of which are entirely about the subject of the article. This seems like a failure to do WP:BEFORE, part D. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Analysis. I've checked all the references mentioned in the article. Subject is non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial references. References mostly are single line mentions. See WP:GNG and WP:INHERITED.

I hope you're not suggesting these are the only sources about the subject... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are the major ones. However, you can find more mentions on oshonews.com but that is hardly reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm seriously doubting this is a thorough overview of all press coverage received. Reviewers should be taking all coverage into account, not just these sources currently used in the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are few other sources which have paraphrased the given sources. OSHO's personal physician, Accused of will forgery - copyright cases, etc. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:INHERITED as the analysis of sources show. Would prefer merging important content somewhere. Capitals00 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I strongly disagree with Accesscrawl's characterization of the material about Meredith in the book, Who Killed Osho, as "Covers Amrito as OSHO's doctor and his physician in last days. Book about OSHO passing mentions about Meredith and other osho sanyasins." The three pages cited cover Meredith's early days in England, his failing marriage to Eileen, his first affair, his firtst trips to India, his romance and marriage with Wendy and the birth of their son Daeveda, and his subsequent affair, as well as details of his religious beliefs. I urge editors to read and evaluate each texts to judge whether it is substantial or a "passing mention". Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The dismissive comment in the table above about "Bhagwan's Doctor Gives His Take on Wild Wild Country" as "more like a blog" does not seem valid to me. The entire article is about George Meredith. The source is a web site published by New York Media, publishers of New York (magazine). This is significant coverage in a reliable source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Grand'mere Eugene and Jonesey95: Thank you both for your contributions to the article, which is looking much better now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources discuss him but nothing seems to be qualifying "in depth coverage" needed for WP:GNG. Rzvas (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What makes this person notable? He's described as Osho's handsome personal doctor who was almost assassinated and that's about it. I concur with the analysis of sources presented by Accesscrawl above. They do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article satisfies all three conditions of WP:BLP1E which states: we generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 1. if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Yes, 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Yes, 3, If the event is not significant or the individual's role was not substantial. Yes. The editor whose username is Z0 07:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - essentially the guy who inherited Rajneesh International Foundation, notable playing a key role in the Rajneesh Movement, plenty of coverage out there. Acousmana (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As demonstrated above, the subject does not meet the criteria set forth in WP:GNG; the sources cited in the article do not discuss him in detail, and notability is not inherited. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 06:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion above, there is insignificant coverage for notability. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In the spirit of addressing the WP:BOMBARDMENT issues, I've eliminated many of the references rejected in this discussion as "passing mentions". One of the difficulties in this research has been the four names the subject has used, meaning some articles refer to his as Meredith, others Devaraj, still others Amrito, and a few as John Andrews. Some use all four names, some two or three... so it's easy to miss some of the more in-depth coverage if you only find a passing mention in one section of a book, and miss entirely the sections where his life and work are discussed more thoroughly.

I would draw attention to three of the sources that actually do cover the subject in depth, and convince me he meets GNG:

• Vaidya, Abhay (15 March 2017). Who Killed Osho. Om Books International. pp. 51–53, 81–83. ISBN 978-93-86410-02-3.

• Reed, Christopher (22 Jun 1988). "From Lewisham to enlightenment". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. p. 23. ISSN 0261-3077. OCLC 60623878. Retrieved 19 July 2018.

• Silman, Anna (24 April 2018). "Bhagwan's Doctor Gives His Take on Wild Wild Country". The Cut. Retrieved 19 July 2018.

Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work in digging out these obscure sources, but I am not persuaded by them. The last one is an interview with the subject, repeating his statements and therefore does not count as a source independent of the subject. The other two are not really in-depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for this, Grand'mere Eugene. I have to agree, research on this individual has been challenging, and I do think some source pruning was necessary. That being said, AfD forced us to scramble, and I'm glad we spent time combing through many sources to put together some sort of biography and timeline about this interesting and mysterious man. I, too, still lean towards keeping this article, as coverage of this subject spans decades and connects him with many notable events, people, and organizations. With a little more time and research, I believe this biography could be molded into an entry that benefits Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the authority of a book written by an non notable individual and citing him as a reference? Such books are often around us and we can't immediately tell if they are reliable especially by looking at the author and the publisher of the book. There will be many such mentions of the individual around and even after this article has been deleted but what we need is independent significant coverage. I am not convinced. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Vaidya has been a journalist for 30 years, according to this profile. He has written for the Times of India since 1987 and is an editor for Pune edition of Hindustan Times. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When he was writing for TOI, editorial oversight was strict compared to this book, which is not published by a reliable source. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a request for help determining the reliability of the publisher and the specifict texts supported by the book, here. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl: Unless you have specific knowledge of the editorial practices of Om Publishing, there's a logical flaw in your argument: "I don't have reason to believe they have strong editorial practices" does not imply "their editorial practices are sub-par." Reviews in The Hindu and The Hindustan Times express the opposite sentiment, for instance "The book is the result of nearly three decades of reportage and is based on extensively recorded audio and video interviews with Osho’s closest followers and a mass of official documents, testimonies and press reports" and "Pune-based Vaidya is a senior journalist who has served as the Washington correspondent of a national daily and as an editor in India." Your argument may have some merit as a reason for skepticism of specific, controversial points within the book, and therefore relevant to how the source is used in the construction of the biography; but it's not an apt criticism of the book as supporting the general notability of the topic. A publisher's decision to cover a topic, and critical review of the book in reliable sources, is sufficient to establish it as contributing to the topic's notability. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject lacks sources supporting independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: would you like to give us some idea what kind of policy based discussion do you expect? You might have seen something that may have caused confusion regarding the consensus. Accesscrawl (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – @Accesscrawl: I object to your proposal in this diff on the RS Noticeboard, to remove the source, Who killed Osho? from the article. Not only do we NOT have consensus on this AfD yet, there is also the principle that context matters. Are any of the statements in the article that are supported by Who Killed Osho? controversial? I listed the statements individually on the RS Noticeboard posting, and I would appreciate other editors' opinions on whether any of those statements are controversial, as we are enjoined to be especially careful in BLPs. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not shocking. I would expect you to keep discussion on WP:RSN since you had raised the concerns there. Saying this as some editors (who don't know this AFD or they don't have this AFD watchlisted) are carrying discussion there. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice you failed to address the question whether any of the statements in the article supported by the book, Who killed Osho? are controversial. Do you have an opinion on that relevant issue? Cheers! - Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Accesscrawl, you seem very eager to take action with this article. There is useful discussion going on in various places, and I'm learning a great deal both about the subject and about the quality of sources relating to him. I would suggest slowing down a bit and letting the discussion take its course. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INHERITED. Not enough references for meeting WP:GNG and the sources that could be used for claiming notability are closely related with the subject. Orientls (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Seems worth acknowledging that since July 20, when Accesscrawl listed and commented on all citations in the article, work on the article by various people has resulted in a reduction by more than half in the number of citations. On July 20 there were as many as 27, and as of now there are 13 (listed below). Kudos to those working on the article for narrowing the scope to of the article to focus on the most verifiable info. I'd encourage all those !voting here to review the current version of the article, which is much improved from the article we were discussing a couple weeks back. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England, Andrews Newspaper Index Cards, 1790-1976". www.ancestry.com. 16 October 1944.
  • Vaidya, Abhay (15 March 2017). Who Killed Osho. Om Books International. pp. 51–53; 81–83. ISBN 978-93-86410-02-3.
  • "Guru's uncertain health improves en route to Oregon (part 6 of 20)". OregonLive.com.
  • Reed, Christopher (22 Jun 1988). "From Lewisham to enlightenment". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. p. 23. ISSN 0261-3077. OCLC 60623878.
  • Pomfret, John (20 May 1990). "With Free-Love Guru Dead, India Commune Goes Mainstream". Los Angeles Times.
  • Silman, Anna (24 April 2018). "Bhagwan's Doctor Gives His Take on Wild Wild Country". The Cut.
  • "Former Aides to Guru in Oregon Plead Guilty to Numerous Crimes". The New York Times. 23 July 1986.
  • Zaitz, Les (April 21, 2011). "Utopian dreams die in murderous mood". The Oregonian.
  • "Escaping the Bhagwan". WA Today. World Australia. 9 April 2009.
  • Mehta, Sunanda (15 April 2018). "Guns and Roses: Osho's disciples recall their days in the wild, wild country". The Indian Express. Indian Express Limited. OCLC 70274541.
  • Vaidya, Abhay (19 September 2013). "Osho's will surfaces mysteriously 23 years after death; sparks controversy". Firstpost. Network18 Group.
  • "England & Wales, Civil Registration Marriage Index, 1916-2005". www.ancestry.com. 1970.
  • Aderet, Ofer; Shubert, Omer (2018-05-17). "'Wild, Wild Country': Meet the Holocaust Survivor and Archnemesis of Ma Anand Sheela". Haaretz.

Yes, quite a shame, probably quite a few discussion participants just glanced at some of the article's earliest sourcing, while we were still trying to piece together a narrative. I'd still vote to keep this article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE "In my opinion, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Severe concerns with notability as well. Onkuchia (talk) 18:07, 3 August 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.