Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barsana Dham (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 Keep (and stub to remove unnecessary fluff). Marking for cleanup... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barsana Dham

Non notable institute. Media coverage is focussed on the guru of the institue and this media coverage is for child molestation. These sources may be reliable, but the focus is on Swami Prakashanand Saraswati's alleged child abuse. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Swami Prakashanand Saraswati is a non notable religious leader. His institute has recieved coverage for his child molestation allegations. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, being the largest Hindu temple in North America seems to convey legitimate notability, if it can be verified. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Kinu. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article establishes notability fairly well, as Kinu points out. A few minutes search seems to confirm this—there are many, many sources of information. Also, the article is about the temple, not Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, so when his notoriety wans, the article can still be relevant. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article looks quite good but sources are mostly from local newspapers or Temple literature. It also reads so like a press release as to need complete re-writing. Regarding being the largest in North America, this is untrue or outdated as Swaminarayan Mandir in Chicago (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-120413398.html) is actually the largest and there are many more that are larger than it. 140.203.12.240 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Barsana Dham is NOT the largest Hindu temple in North America. This has not been proven by reliable sources. The subject is still a non notable, until proven otherwise by verifiable reliable sources - and these have not been produced to date. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. Get rid of the material that is both controversial and unsourced. Otherwise, it looks good. A few self-sources are O.K. as long as good ones are also included. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question is that once the controversial and unsourced material is removed, what remains is a non notable religious institute. Unfortunately, it is the controversial and unsourced material that attributes notability to the subject in the article. Aside from these sources, the subject remains a non notable religious institute. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was reading a WP discussion about creating a sub-project on Radha Krishna Sampradayas, and thought that Barsana Dham must be added to the list of Sampradayas in that sub-project. But when I checked to see WP entry for Barsana Dham, I was surprised to see that its listed for deletion. It may not be the largest Hindu temple in USA, but it certainly is 'one of the largest' and has a very large following, not only in Texas but all across USA. So it must not be deleted. The article does read like a self advertisement/brochure because I assume the text is taken from their brochure or website. However, the tone can be corrected with minor edits. Regarding its founder Prakashananda Saraswati, the article should not be focused on the person, but on the institution. The WP information about charges against him is purely sensational. WP should not be a place for sensational news. Who is going to keep the news about the case current/updated? If WP is not the place to provide updated news on an ongoing case, then the sensational story does not belong on WP. The section on Prakashananda Saraswati within the Barsana Dham article should be deleted, but the article on Barsana Dham should be kept and edited so it does not read like an advertisement. If the article survives, I can try to help with that, although I am not connected to Barsana Dham in any way.Viprak (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question In today's Voice of America news is an article titled, Hindu Guru Charged With Child Molestation Allowed to Leave US. The last sentence states that, "Only a few dozen people live at the Texas Hill Country site of the Barsana Dham temple, but thousands of people have attended services and festivals held at the site." This source states that "thousands of people have attended services..." Is this number of visitors enough to establish notability? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2008 (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.