Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagannatha Dasa Babaji

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. Nothing presented here convinces me that this subject meets our notability guidelines. WP:GNG.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannatha Dasa Babaji

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A Hindu guru (religious teacher) without any notable work or Independent coverage (outside of his org.) Fails WP:NACADEMIC as well as WP:ANYBIO. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Here are some sources for starters: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]~~

~~Did you try and find any?~~

I can't help but feel that you've got some kind of axe to grind here, considering the number of pages about prominent Gaudiya Vaishnavas that you've nominated for deletion in bulk. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not establish the notability. They simply mention his disciples and his org, or are published by his org (not independent). Also, You are supposed to disclose your conflict of interest while participating in AfD. Venkat TL (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~What conflict of interest? I've edited the page in the past so it's on my watchlist.~~

~~None of the books above are related to the person in question, nor published by "his org" (whatever that means).~~

Here are some more, from the Internet Archive, and none of which are published by ISKCON (the organisation founded by the Babaji's great-grand-disciple, which I'm guessing is what you're referring, inaccurately, to): [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. The books by Rosen and Broo are academic texts. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[6] is book by Gaudiya vaishnav publication, (not independent) [7] is a book on Gaudiya vaishnavism, with a 1 line passing mention. [8] is an in-universe publication about Gaudiya Vaishnavs.(not independent) [9] has only a single mention without any detailed coverage. [10] and [11] are books published by Bhaktivedanta Group. I will be interested if there are source, not published by Gauraiya Vaishnavs and ISKCON publications, as they are closely connected to the subject and not independent. Venkat TL (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few scattered mentions in GBooks and Scholar, mostly just confirming his existence. Always seems to be in relation to others. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2021 (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.