Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence Day (2nd nomination)

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 delete. A couple of points here. First off, at AFD we don't care about anyone's opinion on Winged Blades of Gothic or Sitush or on any other editor; argumentum ad hominem is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. If someone wants to keep an article, they need to address the arguments offered in support of deletion, not bring up the behaviour of the editors who began the deletion nomination. Additionally, articles can be discussed more than once at AFD if there are compelling arguments that a re-review is warranted, especially if the last discussion was over a year ago.

Now, on the actual argument the thrust of the delete argument is that there are no independent sources about the topic to satisfy WP:GNG. The keep arguments (aside from the aforementioned ad hominem) consist mainly on stating that the subject is important, that it has appeared on the main page and that the article has been worked on and a request for WP:IAR keep (which has been contested). A list of sources (some of which are in the article) has also been presented which have been contested on the grounds that they are not independent from the topic (which has been only vaguely contested by the keeps), blog entries, op-eds and passing mentions. Also, it's been pointed out that appearances on the Main Page do not count towards notability.

On balance, this is a delete case; most people are advocating deletion and in terms of argument strength it does not appear that the "does not meet GNG" case has been adequately refuted - not all sources that satisfy WP:V also create notability per WP:SIGCOV, and it seems like the sources here mostly don't as the more detailed delete arguments have stated. There has been a proposal for redirecting, but DreamLinker's argument that the Meher-baba (sp?) observation is not the main subject that this title could cover speaks against that. If people want to merge content they can ask at WP:REFUND for the article history, and redirects to the disambig page or moving the disambig page currently at Silence Day (disambiguation) to Silence Day can be done at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silence Day

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Silence 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)

Fails WP:NEVENT by a few miles or so.

Hardly any coverage in sources outside Meher-baba-universe (i.e. website of his trustee, publications by in-house presses of his follower associations, biography-cum-hagiography written by one of his closest cult-associates et al). ∯WBGconverse 20:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 21:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 21:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Can someone explain why this is being relisted? Discussed and resolved as "keep" less than 16 months ago. (see Articles_for_deletion/Silence_Day.) Has anything changed significantly since? Or is this just another attempt to purge non-traditional (i.e., non-christian, non-atheist) religious articles from WP? As a reminder of the reasons to Keep from that earlier discussion:
  • Strong Keep, sourced and an important religious holiday for those involved, and part of a good Baba collection on Wikipedia.
  • This and Amartithi are the only two seriously observed religious holidays among followers of Meher Baba the world over.
  • There is sufficient coverage (and probably much more in other languages) for this to be an independent article.

And maybe why this being relisted? I guess that everybody is damn hell-bent on deleting these Meher-Baba stuff. Can anyone state a new reason for this? A reason not already covered an resolved in the previous discussion? I'd like to hear.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Silence Day is not an "event," it is a well documented Religious Observance. It is disingenuous to describe it as an "event." +/-50000 people keep silence every year.

    I think your beef is the listing in On This Day, not with the article. Or maybe with the religious nature of the observance. Neither are sufficient reasons for delisting the article.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record it's useful to have a look at WGB's history:

    This editor has been on what might be called a "Crusade" to remove most if not all articles associated with Meher Baba.

    Unhappy with the KEEP outcome of the previous discussion, he's at it again. Perhaps hoping that by sheer persistence he can wear out those who see the value of this article.

    COI notice: I have been a follower of Meher Baba for 40 years. A WP editor for (I think) about 9.

    I did not object to the AFD's of numerous Meher Baba-related articles where I agreed that there was a case for Non-notable. But I strenuously object to this AFD. There are practically no observances or requirements for Baba-followers (or as WGB frames us, cult-associates). Silence Day is the one exception, and notable for that reason, if no other.

    It is not an "event:" no parades or fly-overs, no speeches or sermons, no human-interest segments on the Local News. Just about 50000 people observing the request of a spiritual guide.

    WGB now says "[point to] sources covering the event - that's the sole stuff that matters." Actually it's NOT. Baptism is a notable observance, but the 'sources covering the event' would be hard to find. Sources describing the observance, and why it's important are numerous. Maybe not so many as for Baptism, but Silence Day is documented enough -- as the last AFD decided. Nemonoman (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record, I agree 100% with WBG's assertion that Silence Day "FAILS:WPEVENT" by a few miles. But I don't know that anyone has ever asserted that it's an event -- except for WBG, as a reason for deletion.Nemonoman (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We cannot write an article w/o relevant sourcing. Hence, we cannot keep it. If you feel that I am exploiting the deletion-workflow to wear others out by sheer persistence, I will ask you to seek for an opinion at WP:AN about my actions (and steps needed to mitigate them, if any). Baptism is a very broad theological concept that has been intensely covered across host of reliable sources and we (thus) have an article about Baptism, the comparison is a red herring. Obviously, Silence day ain't documented enough - Meher Baba stopped speaking from that day on a part. year, that's all that is found in reliable sources about the day. No source covers in details about his' followers maintaining a parallel silence on that very day in his remembrance (which this article is 'about) and like stuff. The article title is itself not found in any RS; why not something more/less fashionable like 'The Silent Hours'? ∯WBGconverse 04:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*For the record The objections above no longer apply to the improved article. If those are indeed the basis for the AFD, it is now time to withdraw it. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rockphed No, your instinct was right. As the creator of thie AFD, WBG should not have simply been blanking and removing content without discussion. His actions have been out of process in the extreme, and I am beginning to doubt his good faith. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unusual to find an article has issues and to deal with some of those issues, such as by removing sources you don't think are valid. Doing that and then nominating for deletion - because that's frequently what's needed to deal with a lack of notability - is not really out of process. It's just two different forms of article clean-up. Content disagreements can be hashed out on the article's talk page, while notability disagreements are resolved here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep I agree with your assessment, which is why I am concerned. The blanking was done IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the AFD, not before.
The AFD process specifically calls out blanking, especially by the nominator, once the nomination is made. Further, it strongly suggests the nominator's problems with an article be surfaced on the article page or talk page before initiating an AFD. Vanamonde, as an an example, recently did a PROD on Avatar's Abode, but first included a notability concern. (Of course, he's since decided to go straight to AFD, because...well I leave others to figure that out.), At least there were a couple of hours for editors to address his concerns. Further Vanamonde properly followed WP guidlines of informing the article's authors. (A courtesy BTW that WGB failed to extend to me, the Silence Day article creator, in his first AFD). By contrast I get called out for bringing this AFD to the attention other Silence Day editors -- like they shouldn't be told about the AFD(!).
These sorts of actions, taken in totality, are suggestive to say the least. In addition, the specific attempts of WGB to purge articles associated with Meher Baba are worth noting. 12 AFDs of Meher Baba- related articles in less than 24 hours[1] (as found here). And as was noted in one of those dozen AFDs:
"...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)[2]
You seem to be getting very worked up about motivation. Walled gardens are problematic on Wikipedia and always have been. It isn't uncommon for someone to attempt to break down the wall. In this case, most of the articles seem to have been created by one person, many years ago. Since that person has admitted a COI, there is potentially an even bigger issue that has been hanging over these things for a decade or more. As with hoaxes, just because someone has, for want of a better phrase, "got away with it" for many years does not mean we ignore the issue. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush Motivation is an issue here, because it appears to be informing the rationale for accepting or rejecting sources. For example, on a strict reading of WP:V, all the sourced references, including those which have been blanked out of hand, meet verifiability criteria 100%. All come from independent sources based on WP:V. It is the nominator, and others, who are questioning the motivation of those independent sources -- saying that because of their beliefs or POV, they are not reliable. POV is NOT included as a criteria in WP:V, for good reason: it is wrong to impugn a source using motivation as a criterion. In the Meher Baba article, I added many 'unfriendly' references despite a personal conviction that the source was full of shit because they met WP:V guidelines. Since there have been so many Baba-related AFDs initiated by this same nominator, and since the majority of those AFDs impugn the sourcing, and for other reasons outlined above, I point to motivation as key influence in the rationale behind the assessment of source material. The fact that some source authors are Baba followers should not even be brought up in these discussions: yet this has cited been consistently and repeatedly for source rejection, and essentially as the only rationale for deletion. "Hardly any coverage in sources outside Meher-baba-universe (i.e. website of his trustee, publications by in-house presses of his follower associations, biography-cum-hagiography written by one of his closest cult-associates et al)." This assessment by the nominator is specifically and provably false, and was even at the time when the article was first AFD'd--Nemonoman (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add to this the talk page conversations between WBG and Vanamonde, the fact that this AFD was a 2nd nomination after WBG's unsuccessful first AFD (despite no significant change to the article), that WBG's first act following this 2nd nomination 'was to remove the SPECIFIC SOURCES that drove the KEEP of the first nomination, etc., that he calls source authors "cult-associates" -- well I think that anyone might forgive me for beginning to doubt the good faith of the nominator. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:INDEPENDENT. ∯WBGconverse 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Master (Meher Baba) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meher Baba's missing book Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Davy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eruch Jessawala Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amartithi Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faredoon Driver Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beloved God Prayer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prayer of Repentance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence Day Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhuni (Meher Baba) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mani Irani Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shireen Irani
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Perfect_Master_(Meher_Baba). {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
I have read, in fact, I practically memorized this a few years ago in defense of sources for the Meher Baba GAR. The sources in Silence Day are Independent based on that criteria. For the record, as I stated earlier I have problems with Kalchuri for personal reasons, but not for the facts cited in Silence Day, which meet verifiability standards.
I don't have a good way to say convincingly or to give you proof, but I think you should know that there is no Ministry of Information at work here. There is no Meher Baba Vatican that reviews, censors and approves content, or subsidizes publications, etc. The publishers of the cited materials are independent concerns -- Clearly having a POV, so think of them as spiritual equivalents of the Drudge report, maybe.
There is no "in-house" for these publications. There is no overseeing, thought controlling 'His trustee' (although there is an independent Meher Baba Trust in India responsible for upkeep of his tomb, etc.) Kalchuri, who you characterize as 'one of his closest cult-associates', was just a guy among equals, and while I respected his service, I still called him out in public for things he said and did -- just as I have been called out in public.
These matters are so ingrained in the community that there's not even a person or source that has the authority to say that there is no authority. Baba said on many occasions that he didn't want to start an organized religion, and I can personally verify that his followers are the most disorganized bunch you'll ever see. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can lie better. You were informed of the first AfD, right after the nomination was started using a standard template. And, per policy proposed deletion can be used iff the nominator believes that the page un-controversially and obviously does not belong in an encyclopedia. Also, per policy, the sole constraint in renominating a page is in allowing the passage of a reasonable time-span, after it's last deletion discussion; nothing else. Further, I have no clue as to what conversations between me and Vanamonde, you allude to. ∯WBGconverse 12:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but fix I have now had a chance to calm down and actually review the Silence Day article.

In my opinion it is a very poor representation of its subject. Silence Day is a day of religious observance, the only day of observance instituted by Meher Baba. For his followers, this day has the spiritual importance that Yom Kippur has for Jews, or Good Friday for Christians. It is notable as a religious observance, NOT as an event. As with Yom Kippur or Good Friday, it is observed privately or in small groups; it is a day of solemnity and reverence. Any reader with even a modest interest in Meher Baba would eventually want to link to information about Silence Day, so its inclusion in Wikipedia seems helpful for research and education.

Unfortunately, in its current state, the Silence Day article provides very little useful information. I will be making major changes to the article to improve it over the next few days, and in the meantime I humbly ask for concerned editors to suspend their judgment.

In its current state, it contains way to much information and propaganda about Meher Baba's practice of silence. It needs to be fixed to reflect the importance of the day of observance to his followers. Boy it needs work.

By the very nature of its subject, this article will always be relatively brief, but it can certainly be written to better reflect the importance of the day as a spiritual requirement established by the founder of what is essentially a new religion. And it can be written to reflect facts about the subject, not as a vehicle to be essentially a tract about Baba's silence. Honestly, it needs work.

You can look at my history of (attempting) to improve articles, sometimes fairly successfully. I'm serious and it's likely I can improve the article significantly.

Right now, I'm digging up better references. I know that there are better and more authoritative sources about how this yearly spiritual practice was established and how the day is currently observed by Baba followers around the world. I will need a few days to put my hands on the particulars. Nemonoman (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Randy Kryn. FYI, I have begun research and I'm shocked by what I've been finding. There are plenty of references, statements, articles and anecdotes about Silence Day that I had never before encountered. Despite being a piss-poor editor compared to many, I think I can fix this. There's a lot to work with. Nemonoman (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Maybe, if your additions are going well, the nominator would consider closing this nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, cease your passive-aggressive behavior. ∯WBGconverse 15:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main objects of an AfD nomination is to present an article to the editors as an "either-fix-it up or delete it thing". You should be happy when a page that you've nominated is fixed and improved, and remove the nomination with thanks to the editor who has fixed the page. I don't know if this one is at that point yet, but it certainly has a promise from an editor, so I included the sentence "Maybe, if your additions are going well" which includes the word "maybe" as a suggestion in order to end this AfD on a silent high note for all involved. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way what work has he done? Where are the secondary reliable sources needed to secure a passage of GNG? ∯WBGconverse 16:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nemonoman, days before, you asked me to take a look at your history of how things get nasty very quick, when you are in conflict with someone. Now, I need to review your history of improving articles. *SIgh*
    At any case, you are spamming a bunch of 'primary literature' and garden-variety-unreliable blogs/videos and non-independent stuff published by an in-house press.
    WP:GNG demands secondary independent sources. ∯WBGconverse 15:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have questioned motivation in this AFD, because the nominator of this article, and others on this thread, seem to have a very flexible view about GNG in regard to articles that they have created or that they like. All WP guidelines are subject to the interpretation of the editors, and what I'm requesting is that these editors will apply the same interpretations to this article as they do to others that share their POVs.--Nemonoman (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WBG, I said that because I have done a lot of work on a variety of articles. I don't have a one-point agenda, and I've had to learn how to edit in accordance with WP guidelines on several sensitive subjects. I can imagine who you might think I am, since our first meeting is about AFD of an article that has some personal importance. However, I'm not that guy. I'm a real WP editor.
FYI, I recognize that the sources I am adding are less than ideal. I discuss the problem of sources, and try to defend the ones I'm selecting. in the Silence Day Talk page.
Also I haven't done a ton of editing recently, and the darn interface has changed so much I'm editing like a newbie. I'll get back on the saddle soon. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect at best. I looked over the additions made since this AfD. While they are being made in good faith, they provide no additional evidence of this topic meeting GNG; every one of the sources is affiliated with Meher Baba in some way. I can find no others. If the term is a likely search term, redirect it to "Meher Baba", where "Silence Day" is already mentioned. As an aside, I intend to begin a GA reassessment of Meher Baba when I find the time; the degree of puffery on that page is quite egregious. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, please see Silence Day talk page for a start of discussion about sources.
As for your Reassesment of Meher Baba GA, I agree that it is worth a new look. I worked on the GA process, and it basically squeaked by. I think it's due for another look, based on current state. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemonoman: Your argument there essentially boils down to "we must accept non-independent sources because other sources don't exist, and the topic is important to thousands of people". This is exactly backwards. If the topic is important, independent sources should exist. If they don't, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, what people think about it is quite irrelevant. We do not use sources affiliated with the subject to measure notability. You mention on the talk page that you want to go to arbitration about this. You can go right ahead, but I can tell you the result of that right now; ARBCOM doesn't make policy, and doesn't rule on content disputes. You are talking about a change to our core guidelines, and that will require a community-wide consensus-building exercise. If you wish to undertake that, be my guest; until you do so, however, we must apply policy as written, and that says that sources must be independent to count towards notability. Randy Kryn; you may wish to look through this discussion, and that on the talk page, as you are basing your argument entirely off of Nemonoman's. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Thank you for clarifying the matter. There are Independent Sources that identify Silence Day as an essential element of the Meher Baba community. I have seen them, but I haven't got them handy. Working on recovering.
That said, the specifics of the observance are not widely documented outside the community, but well documented by verifiable (internal) sources.
This is similar to other relatively obscure subjects. Consider: some new theory about Dark Matter. It may get a headline [Scientist says Dark Matter Proves Existence of UFOs!] (now it's notable), but the actual new theory may not actually reflect the headline, nor have much independent review or independent sourcing. Still because it's (somewhat) notable, an article that discusses the topic more thoroughly may be justfied, even if it relies on thos sources. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing notability with verifiability. We often use primary sources, and non-independent sources, to cover details that would be otherwise unavailable, in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. Nobody here is questioning that. However, those sources do not count towards notability. The topic still has to meet WP:GNG. Once notability has been met, sources that don't count towards it can be used to flesh out an article. There is no evidence that this observance meets GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can neither see independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in the article as it currently stands, nor find any. We do not exist as a PR vehicle for every cult/sect/religion/whatever that may exist (which is why I'm also frequently tempted to break down the many walled gardens that exist on WP relating to yoga gurus etc). - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush I find this comment unfortunate. I am a novelist (I write as "John Speed" -- my books have been translated into 8 languages, etc) and I use WP as a helpful source for lots of facts. I'm writing now about the early days of Christianity, when it was 'a cult,', and I find a lot of help by seeing the way contemporary 'cults' develop by reviewing information in WP. I don't believe it's WP's job to establish that some religions are OK and others are cults. They are subjects to be documented according to standard WP guidelines in my view.
I AM concerned this AFD has the earmarks of a "Purge", not a deletion. That said, I intend to bring the article up to a better standard, and hope for a more objective assessment. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia and the policies/guidelines that have been developed to achieve that end. Whether you find something beneficial for your work elsewhere is completely irrelevant - there are other means of research that you could use if Wikipedia did not exist. You will note my phrase was every cult/sect/religion/whatever - I made no judgment regarding which of those might be appropriate in this specific context, and I acknowledge you admit a conflict of interest on the matter. I think you may also benefit from a read of WP:BLUDGEON. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore all rules can easily come into play here: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". Keeping this page both improves and maintains Wikipedia, and thus is a common sense exception. Wikipedia has recognized that this topic is important and notable within both the Baba universe and the Wikipedia universe (the page has appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page ten times, on July 10, 2007, July 10, 2008, July 10, 2009, July 10, 2010, July 10, 2011, July 10, 2012, July 10, 2013, July 10, 2014, July 10, 2015, and July 10, 2016), and this in-Wikipedia recognition shows that keeping it maintains the encyclopedia. A page which has appeared on Wikipedia's main page 10 times adds to the weight of institutional evidence relating to the need to maintain Wikipedia (a requirement of 'Ignore all rules') and seems enough to trigger an ignore all rules exception. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as I can tell, Wikipedia's "On This Day" appears to be the primary outside reference. Others, to say the least, are minor. Without WP, this religious observation would be entirely obscure IMO outside the Meher Baba community. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Meher Baba#Silence where Silence Day is already mentioned, and perhaps information from this article could be used to expand that section - as it stands, the article does not meet WP:GNG which requires significant coverage by multiple reliable independent secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mea Culpa I have been dissing the content of this article and silently cursing its editors. I just noticed that I created the article, and it hasn't changed much. I was young and naive, but that's no excuse. I know more now and it will be better -- but whether will pass notability is clearly an open question. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Stats at time of relisting 8 total opinions: 2 Keep; 1 Merge; 1 Redirect; 4 Delete.Nemonoman (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nemonoman, I explained my reasoning on my talk page but essentially it is to see if Randy's IAR, gains any acceptance or not. If not for that this would have been a clear delete consensus. Bet, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't miss it, I just disagree with it. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I think of this IAR suggestion, the more I think it is misguided. If we've fouled up 10 times in the past then that's poor; perpetuating it is worse. I've no idea of the criteria or selection process for the main page items, nor how much they generate in the way of meaningful clickthroughs, but I suspect this article has got there because of the quirkiness of its subject, not because it has any intrinsic merit. It's a bit similar to the way in which DYK folk like to use quirky hooks. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quirky or not, it's there, and has been 10 times. Of course many people think there was no foul up but a long-term mention of an interesting page which has verifiable coverage, so that's just moving the discussion to the level of main page dependability which, I just realize, may answer a question I had at the relister's talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are the many people who thought there is no foul up? Were they aware of the issues demonstrated by source analysis in this discussion which, to say the least, is obscure because of the walled-garden aspect? We quite frequently get things wrong on the main page or in the queues for it, that much about the process I do know because of the numerous mentions of it in discussions relating to The Rambling Man. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean editors involved in this discussion, but the thousands of readers and the many compiling editors who read the "On This Day" blurb for ten years in a row who acknowledged acceptance of its verifiability. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I recently learned of this second attempt to unnecessarily delete the article on Silence Day, due to what the original poster's claims of unverifiable outside sources. A quick internet search will return many such sources, some of which are listed below, and some are stated as sources in the existing article. Whether the article remains will have zero effect on Silence Day being observed by tens of thousands of people every year.

- https://dailyasianage.com/news/72655/meher-baba-silence-day (in existing article) - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/8625404/Sandi-Toksvig-Sssh-its-Silence-Day.html (in existing article) - https://anewlifewandering.com/guide-traveling-meher-pilgrim-retreat-ahmednagar-india/ - https://guttertalkcomicsblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/man-behind-magician-meher-baba-and-his.html - https://www.saimeher.com/notes/brief-history-and-details-of-the-silence-day/ - https://www.saimeher.com/notes/silence-day-10th-july-day-3/

To reiterate as stated by others, this article has been listed on the front page of Wikipedia ten separate times on the anniversary of Silence Day.

Silence Day occurs every year on July 10 with many Centers worldwide holding events, and there are many individuals who decide to participate on their own - without any connection to any Center. If the original poster searched the internet they would have easily found the many other results from Avatar Meher Baba Centers that show Silence Day being mentioned and listed as an event on their calendars on a yearly basis. If the original poster has questions about the observance they could simply ask, or they could witness in person next July 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessmaron (talk • contribs) 04:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC) — Jessmaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I get the feeling you probably have a conflict of interest here as a follower. Press releases are not independent sources but, given you have only made 2 edits in 8 years, perhaps you were unaware of that - it makes me wonder where you "heard" of this discussion, so perhaps you could elaborate. - Sitush (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DISCLOSE Yes I am a devotee of Avatar Meher Baba and have participated in Silence Day for many years. I apologize if I didn't follow a protocol known to others since as you've stated I haven't been active as a Wikipedia editor. My not editing articles shouldn't have any bearing on any pertinent contribution. I initially learned from a friend, and there is a notice regarding this article being in discussion prominently displayed on its existing page.
None of the sources listed above are press releases. They are independent articles on different dates, referencing separate occurrences of Silence Day.Jessmaron (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The remainder are blogs etc from adherents and an op-ed from Sandi Toksvig that I have just analysed at the article talk page. Those, too, count for nothing. Please familiarise yourself with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GNG. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original sources shared are not from adherents and when read you'd understand that to be true. In addition, here's an additional reference to Silence Day from an outside source, which is not a blog, an op-ed, or merely listing the occurrence of Silence Day as an event.
https://www.thefader.com/2017/07/12/sufism-reoriented-cheesecake-factory-california-sanctuary Jessmaron (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the "original sources"? Do you mean the ones that are already in the article, and have you read what I said about Toksvig? And, regarding your new link, do you understand what constitutes a "passing mention"? - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the original outside sources mentioned in my original comment above, some of which are also in the existing article. Yes, I read your comment about Toksvig being a circular reference. In addition to these outside sources, there are hundreds authored by Centers and those individually connected with Avatar Meher Baba. Silence Day will continue to be observed regardless of any recognition on Wikipedia. If it's decided to delete this article, so be it - it really makes no difference to me, solely giving my opinion.Jessmaron (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so you were just saying what has already been said. Just as you don't really care about what happens here, I doubt many people care about what happens elsewhere regarding this issue. The difference is, here your opinion counts for nothing unless it is based on policy whereas in the "real world" you can believe whatever you want, hence the Flat-earthers etc. My recent flurry of posts is because I was briefly tempted by Randy Kryn's IAR argument but, after consideration, I think it is pushing things to the extreme and I note that SoWhy, who relisted the first deletion discussion, specifically said that arguments relating to past mentions on the main page count for nothing. - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterated only that the article was mentioned on the Wikipedia front page 10 times. I provided additional outside sources since that was the original request from the original poster. I never stated I don't care or don't really care. I said it really made no difference, meaning that it will have no impact on the observance of Silence Day, as was also stated in my original comment. For your convenience here again is the most recent additional source:
- https://www.thefader.com/2017/07/12/sufism-reoriented-cheesecake-factory-california-sanctuary Jessmaron (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still seem not to have read WP:GNG. Even Randy Kryn seems not to be arguing for retention on that basis. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GSS, users Dazedbythebell and Hoverfish are significant contributors to this article. Nosebagbear is an editor who responded to the first AFD. Please Note This: User Wing Blades of Godrick violated standard WP Deletion Policy by failing to state concerns on the article's talk page and providing for remediation before AFDing. So just like May 2018 Afd, this new AFD is effectively a sneak attack. It is entirely appropriate to bring the matter to their attention.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS:Update: I have made some requests for sources on a Meher Baba bulletin board, where I mentioned this AFD. You are likely to note some WP editors coming out of the woodwork as a result. I asked for responses from WP editors who understood WP guidelines. I have run into a number of Baba followers who edit unrelated WP articles. My request made it clear that this was not a poll or voting opportunity for casual users. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Telegraph, this The Telegraph source has been found and added to the page by Nemonoman. I knew of this during the first afd but had forgotten. This find falls into the "A source, a source, my kingdom for a source" category, and should establish notability to go along with the many sources which establish verifiability. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except I removed it because the only words of the statement that it supported which were verified by the source were "10 July" and "Silence Day". I also left a note about it at the article talk because it is potentially circular and an op-ed, and I've mentioned the same elsewhere here prior to your comment. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the source is not removed from the page. And please read the linked source over again, the entire Meher Baba story of Silence Day is laid out in it and not just the date and name. It verifies, from a reputable source, the concept, the history, the annual adherence to the day by Baba adherents (and again let me reiterate that I am not one, I don't celebrate or even remember June 10 as anything like this, and on June 10 I talk all day and into the night), and uses Silence Day as an example of the use of silence. This source can't be dismissed as nonsense, cultish, or a "walled-garden". Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have explained it all on the article talk page already and I've never said you were an adherent/follower/whatever - why does it looks like you are trying to deflect with some sort of strawman?I think you're not showing particularly good judgement about sourcing but, hey, our experiences probably differ. I'm very used to analysing sources and, indeed, finding them: this one is poor for anything and I did indeed remove an entire statement for which it was being used because it only supported four words of that statement, as I've already told you: you do know how to read an article history page, I take it? - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list underneath, things like that. There seems to be quite the effort to give the Baba article collection a housecleaning here on Wikipedia, and words like cult are being thrown about. So of course, as one of the editors voting Keep and giving adequate reasons for it (including the source that you say isn't a source, which comes from The Telegraph, gives a good summary of the topic, and reads like a notability source to me) I feel I have to say for sake of my personal reputation that I am not a follower or disciple of Meher Baba. I've read maybe two pages of one of his books. I do not observe Silence Day, or have a memory of ever remembering it. But you know, this silent holiday seems to be honored by many people who believe this fellow was worth that honor. The topic is unarguably verifiable and, as shown by The Telegraph article, notable. Not only is it fine material for an encyclopedia, but the day itself was duly noted and linked on the front page of Wikipedia for ten years in a row (rules and regs and the extent that common sense exceptions effect them aside, that fact alone turns my head). I personally think that the best honor given Baba (although he probably knew what he was doing, and wanted his fans to develop the will to be silent for an entire day so that they could experience a good pattern-breaking technique) is the "Don't Worry, Be Happy" song. Because of the song's popularity, millions of people and pretend trophy fish went around singing, out loud or in their minds, "Don't worry...be happy". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric:You reference a 50 year old article behind a pay wall as proof -- of what exactly? I try to follow Meher Baba's teachings. I also try to follow the teachings of Marcus Aurelius. No one is proselytizing in airports or brainwashing young victims -- not for Stoicism or for Meher Baba. Do you have a personal agenda about this topic? I note that you have AFD'd dozens of articles about non-mainstream Indian spiritual leaders. Is there something you should be telling us? Please come clean about your own COIs and POVs. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nemonoman, Robbins is a sympathizer of Meher Baba and AFAIK, the only sociologist to cover him, in an academic pursuit; you are going after the wrong target .And, any good publication is almost-always behind paywall but I can email you the article, if you want to read it.
I don't know about what COI/POV, you expect me of. Still, if it pleases you, I am an atheist and barring that can't think of any obvious COI. I didn't know of Meher Baba prior to spotting his name across en-wp, have not met any of his followers and I am certainly not funded by any spiritual guru with competing interests (LOL). ∯WBGconverse 12:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric:Now I'm confused. This 50-year old article by Robbins is a valid source for calling Baba stuff a cult -> because he is sympathizer? I thought you were saying those sorts of attitudes completely negate reliablity. Did I get that wrong?
You're an atheist (not that there's anything wrong with that), but you didn't think that fact merited a POV or COI mention? While you set to purging dozens of articles on spiritual subjects?
You are free and easy about disparaging others for their beliefs, but have you ever considered your own motivations? Of course you might rationalize that you are following WP guidelines, etc. But many of your own articles are on subjects of doubtful notability with dubious sourcing. Have you ever asked yourself if you are choosing to AFD so many articles, many of better quality, simply because they don't fit in with your beliefs?--Nemonoman (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randy Kryn - yes, for some reason you do think that an op-ed in The Telegraph by a humorist who is known to trawl Wikipedia for quirky stuff (and uses this particular "stuff" as a hook for a wide-ranging musing on modern life) is reliable, not circular and sufficient to confirm notability. Even if you were right, where is the in-depth discussion of the subject in multiple independent sources? No-one is denying the thing happens. Lots of things happen: here in the UK, there seems to be barely a day or week that isn't appropriated by some body, be it religious, charitable or whatever, but we don't create articles for them all because, well, there really isn't much to say about the things that couldn't be said in the main article for the religion/charity etc. This situation is despite the appropriated days being publicised. and, I suspect, we often don't even mention them in the specific organisation articles. I know you might twist WP:OSE to say that this is an irrelevant comment but my point is that there isn't much said about the event, otherwise we'd have a lot of independent sources really discussing it rather than just touching on the thing, if they mention it at all. You can produce 100 newspaper articles all saying that, say, 10 July 2020 will be Silence Day for those who follow Meher Baba but unless they go into some detail and it is pretty much the same as us accepting press releases or republished newswires as sources indicative of notability (we don't). - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is clearly a new bar -- even if cited in a 100 newspapers, Silence Day would not be notable. You wonder that I question motivation? You are making up Notablity criteria on the fly. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not reading what is said and you lack understanding of our policies. That much is evident even in your various posts here today, which suggests that you are not learning from the links that you have been given for over a week now. 100 brief mentions are no better than one brief mention: we need independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth, not ones that say (paraphrase) "Today is Silence Day. Ever heard of that before?" - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I have not seen the specific policies your are referencing. So far as I can tell most of the refs being posted here are to guidelines. WP:V is a policy, and this article clearly qualifies (or perhaps you have found elements that do not qualify? In which case, detail them). The point you raise above is your own interpretation of WP:GNG, and that guideline clearly has some flex. Some editors involved with this AFD are fairly casual about that guideline when it suits them. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemonoman: You can't demand policies that don't exist; WP:GNG is a guideline, not a policy, but so is WP:N. We don't have policies on notability; we make our decisions based on guidelines. WP:GNG is the basic standard by which we judge notability at AfD. If you wish to ignore it on the basis that it is "just a guideline", feel free; but don't expect a closing adminitrator to give your argument much weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: My answer was to Sitush specifically telling me 'you lack understanding of our policies' in the previous comment. His word, not mine. Also I never said used the words 'just a guideline.' I accept and work within those guidelines. I'm experienced, I know them.
What I'm suggesting is that many editors appear to treat Notability guideline with greater flexibility in some instances, but not in others, based on the article's subject. I myself look into the GNG guideline -- in all cases -- to see how articles may be retained rather than deleted, which I think is best practice, for WP. I believe in WPs wacky inclusiveness. Based on the contributions of others here, I am clearly in a minority. But I therefore I also think that AFDs based on notability should be reviewed strenuously. The Verifiability Policy is an absolute, and easy to assess. Notablity is NOT an absolute.
There are discussions even between editors on this AFD about obscure ways to establish notability for articles they have written. Let's just acknowledge that these guidelines allow for some different interpretations, or there wouldn't be so many 'clarification' pages. Guidelines are not policies with settled case law. That's why AFDs are matters of discussion, not a trigger being pulled by an AI. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I need go no further than to note that this is the SECOND AFD, and that the earlier, much less well sourced version was found to be acceptably notable. This 2nd AFD disagrees with the opinions of those editors. It does not raise any new concerns or present any new facts. It just copies the previous. So this current AFD is proof of my point: Notablity is a matter of opinion. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cant seem to find any independent reliable sources that discuss the said subject directly. FitIndia Talk Mail 06:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""2 Questions for Discussion It appears that the article talk page is extraneous at this point, so I'll post here:

1. I have reason to believe that there are several detailed Silence Day newspaper articles from India particluarly, 1965-1969. Probably mostly in Marathi. I see reference to non-english sources on WP:V. They will take some effort to get, as hard copies only kept in scrapbooks by old guard in India. Should I even bother?

2. What's wrong with the latest incarnation, recently reverted, of an On this day Screen Shot. See here:: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silence_Day&oldid=916199076 --Nemonoman (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Final $0.02
  • Keep, for the reasons below.
1. This AFD should not have been made in the first place
  • The AFD template itself links to this core statement, which the Silence Day AFD is violating:
When to not use deletion process? From: Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process
  • Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.
  • Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.
  • Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.
The "Delete" votes in this debate seem to reflect primarily the very reasoning that is NOT to be used in the decision process -- including disparaging the beliefs of those voting "Keep", and asserting a demand for an unobtainable level of notoriety.
2. This AFD framed the deletion debate with misleading and inaccurate information
  • By using derogatory language to describe the article's sources. "Hardly any coverage in sources outside Meher-baba-universe (i.e. website of his trustee, publications by in-house presses of his follower associations, biography-cum-hagiography written by one of his closest cult-associates et al)"
While the nominator may have issues with these sources, the were reviewed extensively in 2 extended discussions. First in Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 12#Kalchuri as a source, a discussion that got escalated to the RS noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Bhau Kalchuri - Meher Prabhu (Lord Meher). The discussion specifically reviewed the biography-cum-hagiography written by one of his closest cult-associates, and further considered the general reliability of hagiography vs biography.
In case you don't want to read all 80,000+ words : Kalchuri, Glow, etc. were sources found to be acceptable for matters of observable fact (dates, places, times) etc. Not OK for asserting statements better qualified as elements of faith (i.e, ok as a ref for "That evening Baba said there is no hell", not as ref for "There is no such thing as hell.")
But this language is highly troublesome, because it states with no evidence that the content is cult-related, and casts doubt on the integrity of the sources, and effectively on the integrity of those defending the sources. Do Keepers want to be identified with this 'cult'?
In fact some editors felt that it was necessary to say explicitly that they are not in 'the cult.'
How many potential Keep commenters walked away or changed their votes for fear of being identified with a 'cult'?
Framing the AFD with these inaccurate presumptions negated unbiased consideration of the article, and votes to KEEP or delete should be looked at critically before closing.
  • Additionally, by saying that article "Fails WP:NEVENT by a few miles or so."
As the content and references show, the article's subject is not an "Event." It is a spiritual observance.
It has been categorized as a 'Religious Holiday', a sub-sub-category of Events (Events:Religious Events:Religious Holidays). However, none of the articles in this Sub-Sub category would pass WP:NEVENT, a guideline that is specifically geared to addressing events in the news, like a hurricane or mass shooting. Articles in the religious holiday Sub-Sub category are about recurring religious observances, not typically do not reference news items.
See examples of pages in the Religious Holiday Category.
  • Finally by blanking references known to be relevant
Within in 2 minutes of creating this AFD, the nominator removed the references that had been added as part of the "Keep" decision previous AFD discussion, and one specifically noted by the closer in support of his decision to Keep. (see item 4, below)
The editing reason for deleting that source was "LOL; op-eds and commentary-sections ain't RS" FYI, no discussion was included in the article talk page or the AFD to support this doubtful assertion. There is no specific guideline stating that references to a religious observance are irrelevant if they appear in an op-ed.
Because relevant references were missing debating editors were seeing a version that lacked determinant sourcing, and based opinions on an article specifically modified by the nominator to reflect his 'inadequate sourcing' assertions.
3. The specific concerns about Keep-ing originally enumerated by the nominator were addressed and remedied
  • Asked to for specifics, nominator asserted that "No source covers in details about his' followers maintaining a parallel silence on that very day in his remembrance (which this article is 'about) and like stuff"
But that is not the case: there are numerous sources for this. This objection was remedied in my article revisions (see refs 4, 5, 6, and article's final quote).
This is an example of how this AFD is improperly being used to deal with an improvable article.
4. This AFD is simply an attempt to re-litigate the earlier "Keep" finding
  • While no significant changes had occurred following the original Keep AFD of this article, it was renominated. No consquential additional reasons were included in the re-nom.
It may be relevant that the initial AFD was part of a purge of 12 Meher Baba related pages. Most ended with delete or merge decisions -- and Silence Day escaped with a rare "Keep."
Note the language and rationale for those en mass deletions::
"Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess. This t/p thread may provide some backgound aspects on the issue." In that discusssion, the nominator says "what kind of whacko does write a biography of every person whose sole claim to fame is limited to being mentioned...as someone close to Meher Baba?!" [You can see that discussion here,]
However, that AFD was closed thus:
  • "Keep - the latter of those sources doesn't specifically aid the article's independent notability, but the original [i.e, the newspaper reference blanked by the nominator], as well as the other sources available do. I feel there is sufficient coverage (and probably much more in other languages) for this to be an independent article. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)"[reply]
Again, none of the article sources had been changed, challenged, or removed when this second AFD was listed. No new reasons for the current AFD were given, except for the irrelevant assertion that it fail WP:NEVENT, a guideline that does not logically apply, and has not been applied, to articles of this Religous Holiday category.
It might be concluded that the sole reason for this AFD is the nominator's hope to get a more personally favorable outcome. I see no evidence to support any other reason for this AFD.
Venue shopping is not a behavior to be encouraged.
[Note: because of the mass deletion of relevant articles, links to Silence Day have been lost, creating a sense that is a sort of 'walled garden' article that needs addtional links. It used to have some. Editors of newly merged Baba articles should have time to relink to Silence Day.]
Concerning the relevance of "On this day..." I think this question is a reasonable matter for editors to discuss on a talk page. Its relevance has been raised in both this and the previous AFD, with different opinions. However, the matter is not essential to establishing that this article has met all relevant criteria as a "Keep."
COI Disclosure: I have been a follower of the teachings of Meher Baba for 40 years. I was a leading participant in the debates concerning Reliability of Sources of Meher Baba material. I have come to believe that some sources deemed reliable via the outcome of those debates should be re-evaluated based on new information, but unless and until they are, I believe those sources may continue to be used as reliable sources.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Yes, if you can get those (if this page is removed at some point it can be put back with one or two of those sources). 2) that's a good image. That's the point I can't understand, why a 10-time once-a-year-for-10-years Wikipedia main page item is being questioned for notability (not for verifiability, which is uncontested). An odd way to treat a notable encyclopedia article. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, it's as simple as that. The Telegraph source is a contributed op-ed, actually labeled by the publication as a "personal view". The reason not to redirect is because Baba's Silence Day isn't the only Silence Day. The dab page Silence Day (disambiguation) should be moved to Silence Day if this is deleted. The Baba Silence Day entry can remain on the dab page, with a link to Meher Baba, where the content about Baba's Silence Day can remain available to our readers. – Levivich 17:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, yes, it seems WP:RSOPINION allows for the use of the reliable The Telegraph cite as long as the author is mentioned: "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verifiable information to Meher Baba, then convert into a disambiguation page like Silence Day (disambiguation). The term silence day is very general and there is no particular topic which has a world wide importance. Having a disambiguation page at the general term is useful. As for this particular article, I don't think there is enough content to justify a separate article. The event itself seems to be something which restricted to his followers, judging by the paucity of references. In these cases, information is better presented at the parent article.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There already is a disambiguation page with this name, and it is prominently listed in the hatnote, although the page under discussion is the only page with the name Silence Day. 'Silence Day' is upper-cased as a proper name, as is Day of Silence, so there is not problem with keeping the names and pages as they currently exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, the reason I think this article is good for a merge (instead of a standalone article) is because there are not enough independent sources. This can be adequately covered in the main article. As for the disambiguation page, Meher Baba's silence day is not the primary topic users expected when they search for silence day. It would be useful to have a disambiguation page at this title.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silence_Day_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=917156256"