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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Softlavender should be banned from wikipedia for sugar coating the Sri Chinmoy Wikipedia Page which has become a promotional page for sri chinmoy .org — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
OeilDuCyclope (
talk •
contribs) 08:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Not suitable article. Per
WP: CSECTION, there shouldn't be an article devoted to criticism or controversy. Also article is heavily slanted to promoting critical view.
Finarfin77 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 08:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't agree, this Controversy should be kept , there are controversies for many statues on Wikipedia and people in Malta have not been consulted in the first place, regardless of the accusation against Sir Chin MOY ... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
GrumpyLocust (
talk •
contribs) 10:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC) —
GrumpyLocust (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sockpuppet. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, i note that the
Sri Chinmoy page has no legacy section, that could include a list of memorials etc relating to Chinmoy?
Coolabahapple (
talk) 13:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes Coolabahapple, you are right , no legacy and NO controversy Section was which removed years ago . Regarding the items I have put on this Controversy entry they are based on facts , I did not made them up . All have been reported in the Maltese press. You can check . Maybe the article is slanted but it is not on purpose . I will try to rephrase them more gently . Besides I am not attacking anyone . I simply try to put more factual data on this Statue issue . — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SriSriSriPatrick (
talk •
contribs) 16:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
added sections for a less slanted view - hope that would be taken into account — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SriSriSriPatrick (
talk •
contribs) 10:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete nice compliment a separate article for this event. That might be an option for a world religion or a larger group. But I think the main reason for the creation is to discretize SC and their followers.--
Riquix (
talk) 13:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Wikipedia is about facts , not opinions and if we look at the facts presented in this proposed entry there are many facts that show that there is a controversy - The other issue we have too is that is is impossible to do anything on the SC Page without having either Riquix or Softlavender jumping in and undoing/rollbacking contributions - don't think even to say anything ( that is backed by facts ) that goes against SC — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
OeilDuCyclope (
talk •
contribs) 09:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep We have similar isssues in Canada ... maybe the scope of the controversy should be broadened ? like Chinmoy Free Statues Controversy or ask softlavender if we can create the Controversies Section in SC Page , as she is the owner of this entry/page ? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CrummyOwl (
talk •
contribs) 10:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC) —
CrummyOwl (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sockpuppet. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Note to closing admin: All of the "Keep" !votes on this page are sockpuppets.
Softlavender (
talk) 01:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Note to closing admin : calling people having different views on the matter 'socketpuppets' is not serious . Weither this page in kept or not there is an issue with this 2 people that have been undoing other contributions for at least one full year . Wikipedia is about facts . — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
OeilDuCyclope (
talk •
contribs) 05:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Administrator note I have struck the !votes and comments made by sockpuppets. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for editing. Trifle is I think the user Finarfin77 is also I think a sock puppet is a kind
provocateur.--
Riquix (
talk) 15:34, 21 July 2020 (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.