Mula Sant: Article has no sources and a WP:BEFORE search turned up 0 results about this topic.  Clearly not notable, fails WP:BLPNOTE .  - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 00:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  Cannot find any sources.  Clyde [trout needed] 01:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No coverage whatsoever.  Deauthorized .  ( talk ) 01:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Hinduism , Pakistan ,  and Punjab .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] http://babamulasant.com/ seems like a relevant source.  There might be more out there.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That website is not an independent source.  There are thousands of Hindu saints, deities etc, many bearing a multitude of names, and pretty much anyone can create a website & appoint themselves a spiritual leader.  I don't think anyone has accorded me sainthood in Hinduism yet but given time ... - Sitush ( talk ) 08:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:PRIMARY sources can still be used in some cases, and this proves that sources do exist contrary to what earlier comments state.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could be complete fiction.  - Sitush ( talk ) 18:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fiction can be encyclopedic, there are certainly many such cases on Wikipedia.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry but you are being specious now.  The article claims to be about a saint but you're well aware of GNG & that a single, non-independent website published by ehat is at best a cult won't do.  You're getting into WP:ARS territory, I think.  Either find decent sources or stop already.  - Sitush ( talk ) 22:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No I am not, I am only trying to be technically correct.  Note that I did not vote to keep the article, I showed that a source does exist.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like I said: specious.  - Sitush ( talk ) 23:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is rather insulting, maybe you should learn WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF .  - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't you consider it uncivil to waste the time of volunteers raising a "source" which was in the article and which even a cursory glance would tell you is an incomplete website project, complete with Latin placeholder text and non-functioning links?  And then double-down with nonsense about fiction being sometimes notable when you know that the person is claimed to have actually lived?  We all surely have better things to do than chase crap "sources" and arguments such as these.  - Sitush ( talk ) 07:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No?  The earlier reviewers said there was no source found.  I found and provided a source.  That is factually what happened.  Nothing more, this argument is not worth further discussion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An unreliable website is not a source.  Specious, again.  - Sitush ( talk ) 16:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I can find nothing in English language sources nor when searching for the name in Hindi (सत् गुरू बाबा मूला सन्त जी), aside from the terrible website for the temple, a fair amount of which doesn't work due to unfulfilled links, Latin space-filler text etc.  - Sitush ( talk ) 23:09, 18 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete