Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaurakisora 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC as well as WP:ANYBIO due to lack of notable work. No assertion of notability. Can't find independent source supporting notability for this religious teacher. Being a disciple or a teacher of someone does not make a person notable. Sources associated with Bhaktivedanta or Hare Krishnas or ISKCON universe are related to the subject and not independent.

Venkat TL (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep: Have you been able to read the pages of the books cited in the article? Oxford and Chicago University Presses are certainly going to be independent; so if these pages really cover the subject in some depth him, he'll be notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have done my WP:BEFORE and that is why it is nominated. OUP book is used as a filler to source a quote about the subject's disciple, not about the subject. Dont make presumptions and assumptions of notability. Do your own due diligence and then comment. Venkat TL (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised at the defensiveness: AfD is just a forum where we exchange ideas about notability. As it happens, I have institutional access to the books mentioned. I can confirm that pages 77, 78, and 90 of the Oxford UP bookcover the subject. (The source refers to him as Gaura Kisora.) In the Chicago UP book, not only the pages cited, but also pp. 53-7 cover him. What's more, footnote 60 in the Oxford UP book points you to more coverage of him. I conclude that he meets WP:GNG and will change my comment to keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CUP book is available on Google and it does not inspire any confidence in notability . Neither does make any claims/assertion of notability. Mentions him as a religious teacher which is not sufficient. Venkat TL (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether we are talking about the same concept. What I have in mind is WP:GNG: if the subject was covered in some depth by two reliable sources independent of the subject, it will be considered notable. The OUP book covers him in some detail on several pages and refers you to several treatments about his life. The Chicago book covers him in good depth sarting on page 53 and talks you through his life, beginning with his family background and education. These two are enough for any subject. I don't know what you think 'claims of notability' are. They are not mentioned at WP:GNG, so I will not be able to offer much on that part of your argument. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an analogy. If a book is written about a political party, it is only natural that the book will mention and describe a bunch of party members. According to you, all these party members named will be notable by virtue of their mention in this book. WP:NPOL be damned. A few members may be notable, but not everyone who gets mentioned in the book. Venkat TL (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources Modussiccandi mentions, there is

→ June McDaniel (1992). "Mysticism, Madness and Ecstasy". In Steven J. Rosen (ed.). Vaisnavism. New York: Folk Books. p. 292. ISBN 9788120812352.

In all, this is sufficient to establish notability. Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG on the basis of the sources produced by Modussiccandi and Alexbrn. Ingratis (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that all the 3 sources linked above are works about this cult. The cult is notable. All its cult members are not notable, which is what the keep votes are claiming. A book on the cult is expected to mention cult members. About Rosen, from what is visible it only has 2 paras. --Venkat TL (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Suffecient quality RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:42, 27 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.