Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eruch Jessawala

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 and redirect to Meher Baba#Silence. Clear consensus to delete. GSS correctly mentions redirecting as a policy-based alternative though, so I did both. So Why 14:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eruch Jessawala

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba, some other biographies and self-sources.Trivial mentions in a few books around the broader locus of the cult.Has written some books but fails WP:NAUTHOR.Overall, he existed and might have been too proximate to have breath roughly the same composition of air......But, notability isn't inherited and he fails our notability criterion by a mile.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some nackgound aspects on the issue.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, a very notable member and disciple of Meher Baba, and key to the Baba collection. Apparently this fellow "...was also the primary interpreter of Meher Baba's alphabet board, and later his unique sign language." So he translated for Baba, which is stand-alone notable. Amongst the many all-at-once new nominations of Meher Baba related articles in the last day, ones like this, which target key people and key activities of Baba's life, just seem like piling on. And it's a pretty big pile already (and to again clarify, I am not a member of any Baba group, don't know anyone who is, or have read more than four or five pages of his books. just trying to keep a good Wikipedia collection from losing much of its information). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So he translated for Baba, which is stand-alone notable.--Bah......You need to read WP:NOTINHERITED.As to the rest, there's no substance in your aspersions, to rebut. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Meher Baba per WP:NOTINHERITED. Not seeing any in-depth third-party sourcing sufficient to establish independent notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Mandali per discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Davy. Hoverfish Talk 14:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eruch Jessawala was Baba's closest disciple and part author of his major book 'God Speaks.' However, beyond that he has no notability of his own. I am strongly opposed to merging or redirecting, as no other article discusses him. A merge with the main article on Meher Baba would degrade the article (there are endless such disciples it could include that would add nothing of substance to it) and a redirect would leave people searching fruitlessly for some mention of him that wasn't there. Hence overtly dishonest. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dazedbythebell, wouldn't a redirect to Mandali, as user:Hoverfish suggests, and use of some of the language from the page, be a better alternative? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is they come to a page where his name is on a list, but don't learn anything about him. So I feel it is misleading to direct it there. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-WP:NOTINHERIT applies here. Being mentioned as a disciple of saint in what ever context does not make somebody notable (Even if the source mentioning him has a reputation of never being wrong). I would strongly suggest that the Wikipedian's !voting keep read the essay I linked — F R ⁺ 06:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FR30799386, there is no source used in these biographies with such a reputation as you mention. Hoverfish Talk 01:33, 16 May 2018 (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.