Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami

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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami

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

The article is short of good sources, reads like an promotional ad for a guru. No dedicated sources found and the only sources are indicating a reflected notability. Follow on previous AfD where no consensus was reached. (User) Mb (Talk) 12:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Delete No new sources published since previous AfD. See discussion on the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bhaktivedanta_Narayana_(2nd_nomination) where no consensus was reached. (User) Mb (Talk) 12:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Vaishnava guru. He gets significant coverage in at least two reliable sources here and here--Gaura79 (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Next to the sources mentioned by Gaura79, I also found this. --Lambiam 22:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable guru. His coverage in sources is not notable, and there are few. There is nothing that this person is notable for, nor significant coverage to demonstrate notability. As such, delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain, why do you think that "His coverage in sources is not notable"? I believe he gets significant coverage in multiple RS.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
Delete - No sources that talk about him as a notable person. The coverage is a reflected notability from ISKCON, no separate notability to match the inclusion criteria. Wikid ^as© 14:48, 17 March 2010 (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.