Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami B. A. Paramadvaiti

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) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swami B. A. Paramadvaiti[edit]

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

Does not comply with WP:BIO req. No intellectually independent sources to support notability. A relatives' story can not be used as it is not independent. Since no other serious sources found, the only other option left is to merge to Gaudiya Math Wikid ^as© 22:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable Hare Krishna guru. Calling a huge article in The Washington Post "A relatives' story" will not help to prove otherwise. There're more reliable and independent sources where the Swami gets coverage [1] [2] [3] [4] Gaura79 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like three of the sources (supposedly) discussing him, are only mentioning him in passing (does not satisfy the "significant coverage", and the other source by Jelena Galovic does not mention this paramadvaiti. Again the "huge" story is just what his relative wrote, you can not call it an independent source. Wikid ^as© 09:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His name is not mentioned in passing and Paramadveiti in Jelena Galovic book is the same as Paramadvaiti in all other sources. And yes, The Washington Post is a reliable and independent source.Gaura79 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paramadveiti is less then a paragraph. And less in others. How come it is so important to have it's own article? Wikid ^as© 13:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about him. It includes an interview with him. One page in Jelena Galovic book also does qualify as significant coverage. To merge the article into Gaudiya Math makes as much sense as merging Barak Obama into Indonesia because he lived there when he was a kid.Gaura79 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I am still not convinced that the sources are sufficient for inclusion under the guidelines, especially for BLP. Wikid ^as© 13:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This individual is not notable. A mention in a newspaper article does not make a person notable. This is a very clear delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you haven't read the discussion. Currently we have two newspaper articles (one of them in The Washington Post) describing every detail of the swami's life. Plus there's one page about him in an academic publication in Spanish. What we have is a significant coverage of the swami in reliable sources.Gaura79 (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no independent reliable sources that establish notability. A family member's article about a relative is not a reliable source for notability. While this individual does exist; nothing makes him notable. There is no significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject that suggest that this person is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources discussed here are independent and reliable. They are sufficient to establish notability of the swami. You can't call sources such as The Washington Post, John Gordon Melton not independent or not reliable. I understand your strong desire to delete the article but you have to give valid arguments supporting deletion. Besides the two articles entirely dedicated to him, we have a one page coverage in an academic publication in Spanish and John Gordon Melton's Religions of the world: a comprehensive encyclopedia of beliefs and practices. Volume 2 that states, quote

Some of Sridhar's Western disciples have also known considerable success, particularly Bhakti Aloka Paramadvaiti (b. 1953), a Swiss national and disciple of Bhaktivedanta Swami, who founded his own organization, VRINDA, which now has more than a hundred centers, most prominently in South America. Paramadvaiti has also been the driving force in reviving the WORLD VAISHNAVA ASSOCIATION (Visva Vaishnava Raja Sabha), an attempt to coordinate the activities of the disparate Gaudiya Maths. This project has met with limited success, and there're few joint projects with the various institutions, though, with the significant exeption of ISKCON, most are members.

Gaura79 (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word Vaishnava Association is also not notable. If it was you could produce sources and make an article about it. Mentioning someone in passing does not make one notable. There are hundreds of swamis in and around Hare Krishnas, and if you brother writes an article in New York Times, it does not count as the basis of notability (I would use it for an article, but not to establish notability). See my comment below (again). Wikid ^as© 13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable preacher Someone65 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why is he non-notable?Gaura79 (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can certainly explain. The policy is: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." He has not been a subject of any, with an exception of an article by his direct relative. It is as good a an autobiography, which is a reliable source if published by a reliable publisher, but it can not be used to establish notability. In this case the second part of the policy --"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" -- does not apply since there are hardly any sources on him that establish notability. You already said that there are sources, but if you look at the sources you are selling, it does not satisfy others, as we see it as "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources" and that is not sufficient to establish notability. There is no point in asking everyone who votes against the same question. Produce clear cut sources, impartial and legible and I will personally vote to keep. Wikid ^as© 13:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may interpret Wikipedia rules and guidlines the way you like, but the fact is that besides the article in The Washington Post (which you claim is not intelectually independent)

there's an article solely dedicated to the swami's persona in Caretas magazine
there's one page coverage in an academic publicaton in Spanish
there's some coverage in an Religions of the world: a comprehensive encyclopedia of beliefs and practices edited by John Gordon Melton.

This is not much, but it's enough to establish notability.Gaura79 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caretas mention his name once. A page is more like a paragraph and J G Melton is you right, "some coverage". I agree with you that it is not much. For an author of books and a prominent svami as it is the claim, there would be more than that in my opinion Wikid ^as© 19:56, 1 February 2011 (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.