Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narayan Sai (2nd nomination)

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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan Sai

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

Most references refer to him to "Asaram's son". His father is famous, his notability is questionable. Notability is not not inherited. He was recently accused for sexual misconduct, so suddenly there are plenty of web references to him in news. Till 2012, [1] he is mentioned in news for crimes he was accused, but there is no proof he is notable as a "spiritual leader, singer, lyricist and poet". Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus & closure as Keep of recent Afd (<3 months ago), Gnews searches which exclude most recent results seem to show significant coverage for a number of controversies over the last several years. Article may need expansion if anything... Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We just had a recent AfD and it closed Keep and there is significant coverage both before and after the recent rape allegations against Narayan Sai. Also there is nothing wrong with being the son of a famous person, it's impossible for any source to mention him without also mentioning his father. WP:INHERIT is "arguments to avoid during AFD" i.e. arguments for wikipedia editors to avoid making .. no one here is making an inherit argument (except the nom) .. INHERIT does not prevent the sources themselves from mentioning that a person has famous parents. If reliable sources choose to cover a person in whatever way that is significant, it is a sign of notability, INHERIT (an essay) does not negate GNG or reliable sources. -- GreenC 17:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good point Redtiger raises here is that subject isn't notable for being a guru as such. Also, as he hasn't been found guilty of any crimes, thus fails WP:CRIMINAL. But hasn't he been covered sufficiently in recent news? All it might be called as recentism, but we do consider single-event notability also. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, but Redtiger has nailed it. He's 100% correct if he's saying that sources refer him as "narayan sai, son of asaram", i would definitely like to know that before these all popularly termed "allegations", "arrests", "propaganda", "conspiracy", etc, who knew his name? Maybe it will be hard to find even 1/10,000 people. And if someone did, it was/is solely because of his father. WP:CRIMINAL is contradictory to this page as well, innocent until proven guilty. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sources exist about him from before the rape allegations. It doesn't matter so much if he is the son of another famous person (see my comment above, WP:INHERIT doesn't negate sources, only arguments made by Wikipedia editors, and no Wikipedia editor is arguing he is notable because of his father). Nor does CRIMINAL matter since he is covered by WP:GNG sourcing, a person who is innocent can be notable so long as there are multiple reliable independent sources that have significant coverage. -- GreenC 07:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC

How is WP:GNG satisfied? '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail' is violated. News reports (which feature on 7th or 8th pages on newspapers) covering controversy about Asaram's son, is really not significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports WP:NOTNEWS. Except this father's cult websites, its biography or works are not covered anywhere. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about his father, Narayan Sai is just forced to be on screen for the crimes for which he's still not convicted. Person need no biography or separate page, only a 2 liner in his father's wiki page. That's it Bladesmulti (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It involves ~~the whole~~ multiple members of the family. -- GreenC 19:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing, but really anyone would think that even their wives are alleged with some criminal case, if you directly tell "it's whole family." Bladesmulti (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry "whole family" is an expression. I have changed it so "anyone" doesn't literally interpret "whole family" to mean the grandfather, grandmother, aunt, uncle, wives, their parents and and so on. The source makes it clear who is involved. -- GreenC 16:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Asaram Bapu. I feel the individual lacks notability. However, the info/news about him is worth to be included in his father - Asaram's article. Jethwarp (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look at the information that's in the article that's not related to the arrests. There's almost nothing there. If he was notable, we would have sources that make it possible to write an article containing more than his name, occupation, and a mention that he's related to a famous person. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There actually was other sourced information from before the arrest, but it was deleted. -- GreenC 17:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect - not notable outside of the association with his father. WP:BLPCRIME. etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Yes, and a 2 liner about him on father's page, like I added before. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Sources in the article support WP:GNG and those in the previous AfD add more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This person is not popular at all for individual purpose! I don't know which part you have given importance to. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seriously. We're not discussing a popularity contest but rather guidelines for inclusion. There are a sufficient number of RSes to support its inclusion on GNG grounds alone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a weeks late response, i thought you would had came up with something special, but you haven't. This guy is referred only because of his father, not because of his own. Who knew him before sept 2012? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one in this AfD is arguing he is notable because of his father (and even if they did it could still be a valid argument, see WP:INHERIT#top). The WP:INHERIT essay is "arguments for Wikipedia editors to avoid making during an AfD". INHERIT does not say "ignore sources", nor does it say that the sources themselves must comply with the Inherit essay (ie. sources are allowed to discuss topic in context of his father). GNG takes precedent over INHERIT, which is not a must-comply rule if someone believes a topic is notable. -- GreenC 03:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2014 (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.