Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romapada Swami

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. Sandstein (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romapada Swami[edit]

Does not appear to be notable--all references are to ISKCON (Hare Krishna) web pages. A sampling of 20 web hits found no reliable sources. Matchups (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There isn't a specific WP:BIO for religious leaders, but I would have thought that responsibility for a significant part of the USA is prima facie grounds for notability. (We also have "significant cult following" under the "Entertainers" section of WP:BIO, but let's not go there. :) ). The ISKON sites, I think, can be regarded as WP:RS for issues pertaining to that faith's administrative structure - would we delete a Roman Catholic bishop if his article was only sourced from the Vatican? I doubt it. Tevildo (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine about accepting ISKCON sites as RS's for facts about ISKCON and its leaders, but not as evidence of notability, same as an individual's web page, or the Vatican's for that matter. Keep in mind that the rules for notability mention independent coverage. Matchups (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The primary author left this comment on my (Matchups's) talk page:

Aak. You're right. I don't have any 3rd party sources for Romapada. But I am trying to find one- I am getting a book soon that may provide this information. So please give me some mercy! David G Brault (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hold for a few days while it may be rescued. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Romapada Swami has been heavily involved with ISKCON since it's very early days, and is a member of it's Governing Body council. As a western Swami with responsibilities across USA I would say that there is definitely some good ground in favour of keeping the article. However, I'm witholding my vote untill more evidence can be found, and to avoid my own personal bias in this matter. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In looking for sources, be aware that, as Sanskrit transliterations can vary in English spelling, his name can also be spelled Romapad, Ramopad, Ramopada, and similar variations. Unfortunately, Monkey on a Stick: Murder, Madness, and the Hare Krishnas by John Hubner, Lindsey Gruson - Religion - 1988, is not available in Google Book preview. However, I'm pretty sure he's mentioned in the book, as well as in some of the writings of E Burke Rochford (who does turn up on Google books [1]). Romapad was not one of the original ISKCON initiating gurus, so coverage of him will not be as extensive as those who have seniority and scandals. Actually, among original GBC members he stands out for, AFAIK, being surprisingly scandal-free and actually dedicated to the religion. The article needs to have his real name and more bio info to be WP-worthy, though. ISKCON as a movement does have a degree of diversity, sects and schisms, so I don't think every source connected with ISKCON in some manner is necessarily the same as, say, his personal website. That said, Vaisnava Network News search turns up a bunch of articles that mention him, if anyone wants to dig through them for sourcing and content: http://www.google.com/custom?q=Romapada&sa=Google+Search&domains=vnn.org&sitesearch=vnn.org - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are actually a bunch of non-ISKCON g-hits. I've added a bit of sourcing from a blurb at the Penn State Vedic Society, and some ELs to videos and podcasts of him giving classes (I think one is in Kazhakstan, but I'm not sure). Add all his guest lecture gigs to the mentions I recall from Rochford and/or Hubner, and I'd say this is probably worth keeping, assuming it can be expanded from more third-party sources. I found some possible scandals among the VNN articles, so anyone more attached to working on the article may want to look into those as well. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:46, 6 January 2008 (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.