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. It is clear that this article has serious issues that need to be resolved, but currently there is no consensus to delete the material outright. A few editors have proposed merging this material elsewhere to help alleviate notability concerns - whether the best option for the future of this information is to merge it or improve the standalone article is one that should be carefully considered by editors actively maintaining the article. Shereth 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktivedanta Narayana[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bhaktivedanta Narayana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article still does not state, much less prove, how its subject is notable - it only states that he is a "spiritual leader." Also the sources are not reliable. The monthly publication, Sri Bhagavat Patrika, is self published. (That this journal is a self publication was not pointed out in the last debate and was given as a reason for voting "Keep.") Also, the website used for the article Pure Bhakti, is also self published. This religious leader's guru, and his religious institute, are red links, as both are non notables. In all, the article still fails to have any reliable sources with information to meet Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references in which the subject is mentioned, aside from the self published ones, are concerned with the subject of ISKCON. These texts are about ISKCON. In passing, there is mention of Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his relationship with ISKCON. If these references are accepted as reliable sources, then I can see how a Redirect or a Merge to the ISKCON page might be more appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Living persons bio must abide by:
This entry shows absence of all and thus should not exist. None are found that directly relate to the living person called Bhaktivedanta Narayana. He is mention exclusively in passing and number of hits does not warrant the inclusion.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
MBest-son (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of the book, The Hare Krishna Movement, is ISKCON (also known as the Hare Krishna Movement). In order for this reference to establish notablity on Bhaktivedanta Narayana, he would have to be the subject of the text - and he is not. He is only mentioned in a few pages out of this 448 pages text, which is on ISKCON. This article is lacking in references which cite him as the subject. These must be demonstrated, otherwise, the subject still fails even the basic criteria for notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin closing note Application of Notability Criteria:
A claim was put forward (by MPerel) that Bhaktivedanta Narayana has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This is incorrect and he was not a subject of any such material and was only noted in passing. Thus Basic criteria is not met. Maybe such material exists in Hindi, thus subject should be part of Hindi Wiki. As far as English publications it is clear that the depth of coverage is not substantial, and multiple or any independent sources are not present that are needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability, and this is evident from the above searches. No other sources contribute towards proving the notability of the subject. The only sources are self-published and unreliable. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. As accepted the barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Additional criterias are not applicable and no evidence of any of the same is found or can be found from any reliable sources in English. No works focus upon the subject. See: WP:INHERITED that provides cover for this policy and requres at best a redirect or merge to ISKCON that is the subjects inherited notability object. MBest-son (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are two sources, but they do not show the subject to be notable. One source is a chapter in a book on ISKCON, the other is a few pages in a book on ISKCON. Both of these two sources Do Not state that Bhaktivedanta Narayana is notable. It is important to note that these two sources only discuss Bhaktivedanta's relationship with ISKCON. If Bhaktivedanta Swami's relationship with ISKCON is notable then these sources could be used on the ISKCON page to discuss Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)
As far as I understand it, I do not think your interpretation of the relevant guidelines is a common or standard one, or one which enjoys much support at Afd or elsewhere. Of course, if one subtracts whatever is notable about a person, including his relationships with other notable subjects, then one is left with nothing much. But this style of argument is a useless tautology. There is no requirement that a source state its subject is notable; that there is a substantial amount of material is enough. There is much more in each source - where this person's name is in the title - than usually deemed necessary.John Z (talk) 17:24, 10 June 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.
More