Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaishnava Training and Education

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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 03:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnava Training and Education[edit]

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

My redirect was reverted without, in my opinion, a valid reason, so I'm taking it here. This is a training branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and their article is already fraught with POV and directory-type information. This "school" of theirs seems to have no independent notability, and the article is basically a brochure, with goals and requirements and not, as one would expect in an encyclopedia, a well-balanced and well-verified overview and history of the place. The subject broadly speaking cannot complain of its coverage in Wikipedia (see, for instance, Governing Body Commission), and one wonders whether we are not being used for publicity purposes--but that's by the by. This organization, I submit, does not have independent notability. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject has enough reliable sources to show notability. Article needs work. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources massively fail WP:RS. Article fails WP:NRV. Subject does not appear to be a generally recognized degree granting secondary school. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. Article appears to be an advertisement and severely fails WP:NOT. Between its obviously promotional nature and the complete lack of reliable sourcing this thing needs to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2014 (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.