Talk:Hariharananda Giri

In universe

My assumption based on the jist of the article is that this is a mythological character of some sort. Much of the article does not pass Notability (fiction), and uses an "in universe" tone. Any 3rd party sources or literature that references this character would help...Cander0000 (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How does this look like mythological character? The article uses an "in universe" tone because the subject lived in the real universe. He was perfectly real and his life and death were noted by several media outlets [1] and a biographer [2]. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent removals

I have to say that the recent deletion of much of the content, though clearly in good faith, is not appropriate. The citation needed tags were only restored recently. There were appropriate citations for many of them, to Hariharananda or his followers. The problem was not with the sources, but with the way the text was phrased, non-neutrally, and reporting claims as facts.

The rules on sourcing in this general area are often misinterpreted in extreme ways - either too loosely - anything goes, or too strictly, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is no rule against using even self-published material about claims that a person or organization makes about himself or itself, if they are otherwise appropriate. We do not report them as facts, but as claims: "Person X says that Y happened"(footnote), not just "Y happened"(footnote). This is especially true if these claims have received attention from other sources, as has happened here. Then we say "person Z says Y did not happen, and that person X is a big fat liar."(footnote). Removing them is not a good idea in this case because the article is in AfD, and the criticism section helps prove the notability of this person - people who are not notable are not criticized, they are simply ignored.John Z (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, I reverted myself, until the afd closes. ~ priyanath ^talk 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, if I have the time, I'll neutralize and cut it down some. I agree that this like many guru articles gets filled with so much unencyclopedic puffery they can be hard even to read. Books he wrote, which were removed by others, clearly belong too and help uninvolved participants understand the AfD debate better.John Z (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, books he wrote were added back again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.129.68 (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hangon tag

I have added the {{Hangon}} tag—Just a simple search establishes the notability and presence of secondary sources. See for ex: Google book results, Google news results. However, citations, copyediting of the article is necessary as per wikipedia quality guidelines.--Nvineeth (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No need for a hangon tag, the article isn't being nominated for speedy deletion. Use the link in the template to go to the discussion about deletion. Thanks. --GedUK  14:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of WP:V, inappropriate removal of references

Shannon-Rose (and others), please do not remove references merely because you do not have cost-free access to them. As I have made clear on the AfD, there is no requirement that references be available for free. If you would like to read those articles, there are a number of steps you could take (subscription, travel to library with holdings, inter-library loan, etc.). If you choose not to avail yourself of those opportunities, that choice does not mean the articles do not exist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I second this point. As I stated at the article AFD, I myself have accessed and read the December 6, 2002 obituary in Miami Herald (republished on Dec. 22 in the Calgary Herald). Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)