Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Goswami (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 delete. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Goswami[edit]

Non notable who represents a non notable institution, Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mission, that has been deleted as not notable. Sources are questionable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non notable individual from non notable religious institute. Sources are questionable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol. As the nominator, I don't think you need to/should provide a subsequent vote, even if you "strongly" want deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Ism schism (talk · contribs), but also the entire article appears to be WP:OR violation, and the only sources given at the bottom of the article are sources directly affiliated with the article's subject. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A google search, if you actually dig through the results to find third-party references, reveals that he is at least somewhat notable. The sources are currently problematic, but I don't agree with deletion being used as an easy way of remedying reference/OR issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google searches do not establish notablity, nor do the number of results establish reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they did. I said the sources found through a google search demonstrated notability to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the two years, the article seems to have acquired no sources; it has remained virtually the same. I would not object to a later re-creation if sources are found. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 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.