Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yadunandana Swami

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 consensus. The "keep" !votes in the beginning are rather vague and weak. However, Ism schism has provided sources, which have not resulted in discussion for three days. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yadunandana Swami[edit]

Yadunandana Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no coverage in idependent reliable sources to establish notability. Gaura79 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- there are sources that support notability claimed, but article needs improving to get up to the standard. Wikidas© 12:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited in the article are not independent of the subject. They are ISKCON sources and cannot be used to establish notability.Gaura79 (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bhaktivedanta College is not a "dependent" or managed by ISKCON, and he is the principal so that is the reasoning for keep (you obviously will not agree with it). The sources of the Parlament of Religions is not dependent on ISKCON. Also this article in EL PAÍS confirms that he is in-charge of ISKCON Spain, [1], and [2]. Obviously being a religious leader most of information is from religious sources, but these are independent of him as well, info from his website can be added but should not be used to establish notability I think, I sufficient work was put in this article to support notability and inclusion. Wikidas© 13:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also was elected ISKCON Euro-GBC Minister of Education just a few month ago. [3]. Thanks, Wikidas© 13:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikidas. Agreed that the article needs work, but the subject is notable. --Shruti14 talk • sign 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Shruti14. The subject is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 4 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, Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • relisting comment At a glance this looks like an easy "keep" decision, but many, if not all, of the keep arguments are based on WP:ITSNOTABLE and lack solid policy based support. Not saying they are wrong, haven't done any research on the topic, but assertions of notability are not enough at AFD, actual evidence is expected. Therefore, giving this another week in the hope that more policy based reasoning will become evident.Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on it. The sources provided in the article and here confirm that the subject is notable, is included and described in the reliable sources and meets the WP:GEN guidelines. Wikidas© 05:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; but even if that were true, the subject is still a notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:01, 22 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, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Relisted for more discussion about the sources and the comment by Xxanthippe (talk · contribs). Since Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)'s relist, participants have stated that the sources in the article are sufficient to establish notability. However, they have not pointed out specific secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Yadunandana Swami.

    Once there is analysis about specific sources that establish notability, the discussion can be closed. Cunard (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful, too, if keepers would say under which category notability is claimed. It seems that WP:Prof is not satisfied and that there are no sources independent of ISKCON. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete per Admin's comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears you've changed your position, so it'd be a good idea to strike your "keep" from last week (above) lest there be some confusion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:Prof and sources are not adequate for anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note -- it does not make sense to apply WP:Prof while it is actually a case of a notable leader in the Hare Krishna sect. While the number of staff may or may not be important in this case, the fact that the college is notable makes the person who manages him and is sects minister of education notable and there are sources that confirm that. Wikidas© 08:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argument is fallacious. See my comment above. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PROF cleanly, there appears to be a lack of reliable sourcing to support under the GNG as well, per Xxan's remarks. RayTalk 19:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The requirements suggested by editors that this subject should be held strictly to the standards of WP:PROF are lacking. The subject is a religious leader. This subject is also the head of an international religious organization's main educational institution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how this comment is connected with your changed vote user Ism schism? I also can not see why WP:Prof even being used. The point is that as you say, and I prefer if people who vote would have at least some expertise in the area. Wikidas© 07:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that WP:Prof is applicable at all. The subject we are discussing is a religious leader. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy does not include a WP:Religious leader for guidelines. This has come up again and again in Afds on religious leaders, and the subject up for discussion is the very archetype that this discussion can not solve. I can not, and will not, vote on this subject based on the criteria of WP:Prof. There needs to be a WP:Religious leader guideline, but there is not. The subject should not be deleted due to a lack of policy guidelines as the subject is a religious leader, and a notable one considering its context. I will add more to this discussion, but will reflect more in the next few days, until then. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that WP:Prof is failed. Is there a pass under other categories? There has been a discussion of the notability of clergy here [4]. Consensus view seemed to be that religious leaders were expected to pass WP:GNG and were not notable ex officio. In this case it seems that sources are not independent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yadunandana_Swami&oldid=1072166196"