Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indradyumna Swami

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 no absolute consensus able to be determined - default to keep. --VS ^talk 10:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indradyumna Swami

Non notable individual. Article does not demonstrate how individual is any different from the other 100 or so ISKCON swamis. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources, and individual is not notable even if sourced. Ism schism (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or merge to a more general article about ISKCON swamis --B.C ^{say what ?} 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fewer than 48 Swami in ISKN. Plenty of on-line third-party sources (see Google - 29,000 hits). --Oldak Quill 01:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The individual must be notable and sourced with independent reliable sources. This has not been demonstrated. Also, the amount of Google hits does not establish notability. Ism schism (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold "This has no been demonstrated" - the fact tags were added the same day as AFD, give contributors some time to add references. Chopper Dave (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is over a year old. I have personally looked, and will keep looking, but have found no independent reliable sources who address the subject at hand (more than in passing). Even if independent reliable sources are found, I do not find any assertion of notability in the article or in what I have read while looking for references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response In Sepember of 2007 the article was tagged for notablity. It was removed (although I believe never fully addressed). There has been ample time since then to address this issue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The contently is notable, as any Google search will show. I also fear that the proposed deletion of this page is potentially part of a larger objective to remove a number of ISKCON related pages. Yes it needs sources, but No lets not delete a useful article out of hand. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google searches do not establish notability. Have any academic works been written about him, do scholars discuss his teachings and cite his books? These are the standards of wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For this article to pass these standards it must be written accordingly and be sourced accordingly. This article is not. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable person as per publications/online records and books. additional references to be added to prove notability Wikidas (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Wikidas, it has been five days since you made this statement. Where are these refererences you are talking about? If they are reliable sources they would help this discussion. In its present state, the article still fails to satisfy Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

Wikidas, I comend you for your recent additions, but the references your are placing in these articles still fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please note that websites owned by the subject of the article are not reliable and books published by the subject must be reviewed (verified) to see if this attribute is notable. Many preachers write books, diaries, weblogs, etc. These are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my previous reply is standing. References added comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, but not with your interpretation of it. Wikidas (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidas, an autobiography by the subject of the article is not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, articles which only mention the subject in passing are also not Wikipedia:Reliable sources that establish notability of people. Please try to find Wikipedia:Reliable sources that establish notability of people. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper source was added. I agree that the article needs to be downsized or edited to avoid above comments. And for BLP autobiography is a bona fide source.Wikidas (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This newspaper source only mentions the subject of the article in passing and does not establish notability of people through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say that we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability. --SJK (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Using the above logic, all ISKCON swamis would have a page on Wikipedia. This is not a small group. Articles on ISKCON swamis must, like other Wikipedia articles, establish their notability of people and establish this through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This has not been done in this article. Ism schism (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ism schism, you have nominated for deletion delete practically every ISKCON related article you have come across. Where is the logic in this? Are we to believe you really feel that they are all non-notable? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Gouranga, I have come across hundreds of ISKCON related articles. I have AfD this article because it is a non notable biography with no Wikipedia:Reliable sources to back it up. The article does not comply with notability of people. There are no independent sources as well. The other article's I have nominated in the past have been for the same reasons here. There are dozens and dozens of notable ISKCON religious leaders, but this one under discussion has yet to show notability. Ism schism (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few sources and it's all good, why delete a perfectly good article? Ism schism, are you just trying to delete all of the ISKCON articles? Wow...that's not being a good wikipedian. Warrior4321^talkContribs 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment and Request Warrior, could you please help us--how can we tell who are the leading people in this religious movement? What are the criteria that we should use.? DGG (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe (for the reasons stated on other AfDs) that given ISKON's status as a notable, substantial religion membership on the 48-member ISKON governing board is sufficient to convey notability, just as membership in the College of Cardinals or the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is in other religious denominations. I also believe that ISKON sources are reliable for verifying who is a senior ISKON leader. Religious sources are generally reliable for religious issues such as religious roles and religious notability. However, sources verifying that this individual is on the ISKON governing board do need to be produced, whether from ISKON or somewhere else, to justify a keep. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indradyumna Swami is NOT a member of the Governing Body Commission. Please see, [1]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indradyumna Swami is a spiritual leader within ISKCON. GBC posts are primarily managerial in nature. As a sanyassi (Swami) and leader, Indrayumna Swami is highly notable amongst ISKCON members, regardless of being a GBC or not.[2] He has played a very active role in the movement since the early 1970's. There are approximately 70 official Swami's in ISKCON, only some of which are involved in managerial GBC roles. Indrayumna Swami had an article written about him in Back to Godhead, the official ISKCON magazine at this link Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also official list of ISKCON Sannyasis (or Swamis) from 2007, which includes Indraymuna Swami. Regards Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:47, 25 February 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.