Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents' Worship Day

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parents' Worship Day

Parents' Worship Day (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)

Completing incomplete nomination for Vvarkey. I'll ask him to explain his nomination. Stalwart111 09:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 18:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Nominator has not given any rationale, and as a regular editor of WikiProject India and WikiProject India AFDs, I don't think there should be any valid reason to delete this article. The article passes GNG (ref 1, ref 2, ref 3). The article may have multiple issues, but that is not a reason to delete. I can't see any other issue. But, I'll follow the AFD to see nominator's rationale. --Tito☸Dutta 18:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda per policy. This article violates violates Wikipedia policy WP:NOTPROMOTION This so called Parents' Worship Day is not celebrated anywhere in India. It is a political propaganda event and Indians pay no attention to these events. The only thing that is celebrated in India on February 14 by a significant proportion of Indians is Valentine's Day. Some politicians are just turning themselves into a national laughing stock by coming up with these ideas. Also did I mention that (Redacted) (Asaram Bapu), (Redacted), originally came up with this idea of Parents' Worship Day. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that its a BLP violation and an unnecessary thing for someone to say since it holds no weight as an argument for deletion, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Most of the article is just trying to establish how "important" this date is. As an Indian, I've certainly never heard of anyone celebrating this day. At best, this be merged back into the Asaram Ashram page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vvarkey:, as a nominator, the first and the most important thing you should do is— write a persuasive initial rationale (not a comment). It does not matter what you have heard and what not. Do you want to have this article deleted for notability reason (i.e. you think the event is not notable enough) or for some other reason? Clarify. --Tito☸Dutta 10:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded - I left you a message on your talk page suggesting you add a rationale to your incomplete nomination. I've struck your vote above - as the nominator, it is assumed you support deletion (though at this stage we are still left to wonder why). If you support speedy deletion then you should have nominated the article for speedy deletion (though that would likely have been declined). If you don't add a deletion rationale to your nomination I'll procedurally close this per WP:SK1. Stalwart111 10:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stalwart:, WP:SK1 may not be applicable here which states no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted.., someone else has suggested speedy deletion. But, IMO, that is also a WP:IDONTLIKEIT type comment. They are saying: they have not heard of it or in India, no one celebrates the event. But, the references I added in my first post clearly show that the event was celebrated at least in few states. So, I am still trying to understand the reason to nominate this article for deletion. In addition, in case if you are not aware, you may have a look at this dispute where eventually Jimbo Wales got involved and his edits were reverted etc etc. The biographical article is a controversial article at this moment. I won't be surprised if I see few more "speedy delete" votes, but the closer needs to be careful. --Tito☸Dutta 11:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I understand that, but this nomination is getting ridiculous and the other editor can take it up with me if he/she wants. I should have just removed the templates from the article and the log as an incomplete nomination rather than completing what was obviously an ill-thought-out (and likely pointy) nomination in the first place. Could even be closed as "wrong venue" if the right venue is ANI. Either way, this shouldn't sit on the log with no deletion rationale whatsoever. Stalwart111 12:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The long list of glowing, often unreferenced quotes is not defensible. Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize the world, not to copy it, and giving a lot of quotes for no purpose but to demonstrate that some famous people gave support is not standard. The standard thing is to list the names (with Wikilinks) and have a list of sources to document that they actually gave support, relying on quotes only where there is something particularly interesting or crucial about how they put something. Once the article is suitably deflated, there should only be a couple of paragraphs that could be merged into Asaram Bapu. The Asaram Bapu Ashram article also would probably be best merged into the parent article for now. People have been hearing about a big BLP controversy at the main article because all the meat of it is delegated out to these snippets, while "controversies" are retained at the parent, leading to an appearance of bias. Wnt (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wnt:, sourcing should not be an issue here. There are few sourcing errors which can be solved too. A part of the article should be rewritten too. But, the event has its own importance. So, I don't think this should be merged. BTW, about Asaram Bapu article, few days ago there I added a summarized paragraph from this article. --Tito☸Dutta 19:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete or Merge If it is orange in color, has claws, and is striped it has to be a tiger. I had only pointed the irrefutable facts in my comments earlier including the reason for his arrest. There is no need to pretend that problems don't exist or to tiptoe around. I did not say that he was convicted. I did not edit the main article. Unnecessary censorship on discussion page is ultimately a detriment to Wikipedia. This guru has been one for the abolition of Valentine’s Day, which he sees as just the excuse all these young people need to have sex. Therefore he came up with this idea for Parents' Worship Day. Now he is in custody for sexually assaulting a minor at his ashram. Therefore the context is extremely important here. For example some motives for antigay violence suggested in the literature include proving heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires (Reference: Adams HE, Wright LW, Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?. J Abnorm Psychol. 1996;105(3):440-5.). Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. You cannot create an article about your high school crush or alleged criminals' social messages. His social messages belong to his personal page only. Additionally, India is a country of more than a billion people. A political event attended by few dozen people (even that is a stretch in this case) in remote corners of India is a non-event. The whole purpose of this page (Parents' Worship Day) appears to be self promotion. I'd say more, but the language police would be redacting my comments again. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Preetikapoor0: Whoosh! Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT comment. Please support your arguments with sources and not by your personal opinion and original research. Your primary concern seems to be notability. But, above it has been shown the event has got media coverage. Your personal opinion etc don't matter. --Tito☸Dutta 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ashram article isn't actually a bad start on its own, and I can kind of see keeping it, especially if the organization turns out to have some independence (I know nothing about it - would it remain intact after the founder dies, etc.?) But there are times when a topic has just a few shards of coverage separated by big gaps where it may be better to consolidate all the related articles into one - but not for the purpose of deleting stuff you don't like, but to make it clearer where to expand it! Wnt (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Titodutta: I am a little bit confused by your actions. If you think that the reference was good and we should add a "controversy/criticism" section, why did you revert my edit on Asaram Bapu Ashram. It gives the impression that you are sanitizing the articles of Asaram and deleting all the negative references. But while Asaram's actions and his Ashram's alleged illegal activities have created a firestorm of controversy, you can't read about it on Wikipedia. Any negative references are being promptly deleted. As aptly said by Snigdha Poonam in New york times, "The most zealous of his followers are, however, neither in his satsangs nor the street demonstrations, but online" "Mr. Asaram could turn out to be innocent, and this whole controversy may well be a conspiracy of the Congress or of Coca-Cola, but one thing is clear: rape is not yet a real issue in India." Preetikapoor0 (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Burden of proof is on the delete side to show that the article as written is not a notable concept." In your comments you confessed that this day is a concept. And that is why this article should be merged with the biography of the person (Asaram Bapu) who came up with this concept. As opposed to false statements by @Titodutta:, this is Not an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am not the one here sanitizing the articles of Asaram Bapu and deleting all the negative references. The problem here is WP:NOTPROMOTION. As aptly said by @Vvarkey: Most of the article is just trying to establish how "important" this date is. This article is full of Materially False And Misleading Statements. For Example "...It is celebrated in many parts of the world, majorly in Indian sub-continent..." It is stretching the truth beyond the breaking point and gives a blatantly false impression to wikipedia readers. Another statement, "...Asaram Bapu, a famous Hindu spiritual leader from India" but conveniently neglects to mention the other half of the story that he is in custody for sexually assaulting a minor at his ashram and per media reports his ashrams are a den of illegal activities including money launndering, tax evasion, land grabbing and sexual misconduct. Reference http://www.tehelka.com/the-saint-and-his-taint/?singlepage=1. It falsely states that "... Asaram Bapu also expressed that this initiative is not against the celebration of Valentine's Day..." On the other hand new york times reported that his most persistent campaigns against the growing sexualization of Indian society has been one for the abolition of Valentine’s Day, which the guru sees as just the excuse all these young people need to have sex. “Chhora Chhori ko phool de, bole main tumse pyaaar karta hoom; chhori chhore ko phool de, bole main tumse pyaar karti hoon. Satyanaash ho jaata hai. Pyaar ke bahane gandi gandi harkatein kar ke khali ho jaate hain.” (“Boy offers flower to girl, says he loves her; girl offers flower to boy, says she loves him. It leads to destruction. They engage in dirty acts in the name of love, wasting themselves in the process.”) (Reference http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/the-advantages-of-being-asaram-bapu/). Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting oneself, a product or service, or an idea. Therefore it cannot be used to promote this concept of Asaram Bapu. In this article Asaram Bapu's zealous followers are trying to present Asaram Bapu's fringe concept as something that is followed by majority of Indians and a significant part of population of several other countries. This act is explicitly banned under Wikipedia:Core content policies, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. Therefore this article deserves a speedy deletion or at best a merge with the biography of the person Asaram Bapu who came up with this concept. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, you seem to really have a problem with this related figure. Shii (tock) 07:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic meets WP:GNG. 14:53, 6 September 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parents%27_Worship_Day&oldid=1082624129"