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 technical keep. It seems to be the consensus of those involved that it is too early to consider this topic again since the closure of the last AfD. I am noting that this is a technical keep rather than an outright keep closure so as not to create the impression that the content itself is being endorsed by this discussion. I would suggest the nominator refrain from bringing this up for a little while - even no consensus closures require more than a few days to cool off before dragging the article through AfD again. Shereth 22:13, 19 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. The main reference for this article is provided from a chapter in a book on ISKCON called The Hare Krishna Movement. This chapter, "Routinization of Charisma," is just one chapter in this book - and it is about ISKCON and Bhaktivedanta Narayana is mentioned concerning his relationship with ISKCON (for a specific period of time). References on this gentleman's relationship to ISKCON are not enough to establish notablity as long as the subject himself remains non notable. Assocication with a notable subject does not confer notablity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please assume good faith as my intention is not to be abusive. Also, I disagree with you as the reasoning for deletion has changed. The previous reasoning was, "Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely." The reasoning given above for the nomination has been specified to address the particular issues not addressed in the last discussion. This new discussion is a new chance to reach concensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You also argued "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)", which is your argument now. Closing admins evaluate all the arguments; you are not making a new one here. GRBerry 13:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Bhaktvinode. Non notable spiritual leader. Culturalrevival (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you offended anyone (certainly not me), but renominating an article for an AfD only four days (!) after a 12-day long AfD discussion was closed is, in my opinion, abusing the process, regardless of your motives. You are not helping your case by doing this. If you think the previous AfD was closed incorrectly, you can file a WP:DRV case. Otherwise, give it a break for a while. Nsk92 (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect and merge to ISKCON per 2nd nomination discussion. Culturalrevival (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fine example of POV pushing if I ever saw one. "the only reference in the article that is concerned with the subject"? Really?! "the only reference in the article"? What about the other reference listed in the article, the book "The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant and Change" by Graham Dwyer (Editor), Richard J. Cole (Editor), available at Barnes&Noble? The book is also cited in the article and it has a chapter about Bhaktivedanta Narayana written by Richard Cole. This chapter is partially available for preview at googlebooks:[1]. A cursory look at this preview shows that it provides in-depth coverage of the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment on your "has no reliable sources" claim. Apart from the book by Dwyer and Cole, even if what you say about the chapter in the other book cited in the article The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious by Edwin Bryant, Maria Ekstrand is correct, the Bryant-Ekstrand book is still a reliable source that is fine as a primary source. The book is published by Columbia University Press and is edited by two independent academics, see the publication notes atBarnes&Nobles:[2]. Even if Collins' chapter in that book does not go towards establishing notability of the subject (if your claims about Collins are correct, and I'd like for someone else with access to the book to verify that), the book and the chapter still qualify as a reliable source, per WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nsk92, I disagree with your position here, if I understand it correctly. Ism schism's statements about Collins are correct, see [3]. But as I wrote below, do we demand that biographers of rabbis be catholics? Bryant, Ekstrand Columbia University Press and E. B. Rochford below consider Collins to be reliable and independent enough scholarship. That's more than enough to satisfy the guideline, and there are the other sources I gave below, one of which, www.vnn.org, was recently removed from the article by IS.John Z (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the first reference is a former ISKCON devotee who is now a member of Bhaktivedanta Narayana's organization. This is not an independent sources. Aside from this, the second reference concerns a chapter in a book on ISKCON, of which two pages mention Bhaktivedanta Narayana. There are no other independent sources to confirm notability or independent perpective. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict, so I repeat some of Nsk92's points) Some of your above statements are not correct. The Collins article is not the only clearly high-quality RS source being used in our article, as you seemed to realize during the last AfD, when you said "These are two sources," - the other one having been The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant And Change. That the book with Collins' article was published by a major university press is sufficient guarantee of independence. The guideline does not demand that biographies of rabbis be written by christians. The introduction to this CU Press volume, not written by Collins, notes that the schism with Bhaktivedanta Narayana was the "most recent and divisive." - more argument for his notability, as are passing mentions in the book by other authors. There seems nothing wrong with using the bio at www.vnn.org to show notability and as a source, or even purebhakti.com as additional source to help write the article. The proper course is to make sure the article is not a puff piece mindlessly praising him, not to eliminate a clearly quite notable subject and sourced and uncontentious material about him. If there are genuine concerns about the reliability of a source, I suggest taking the matter up at WP:RS/N. Yet other unimpeachable sources are Hare Krishna Transformed By E. Burke Rochford, from NYU Press, with a couple of relevant pages, or The Hindu World By Sushil Mittal, G. R. Thursby, from Routledge, a single volume reference on all of Hinduism, relevant page not viewable online. Again, this article should be speedily kept, per the many arguments of the many different experienced editors in the three AfDs. This is not a close call.John Z (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, that is what I meant by POV pushing. First you claiming that "the only reference in the article that is concerned with the subject"? when in fact there are two and then you claim that the article has "has no reliable sources" when again in fact there are two. The book of Dwyer and Cole has a section (pages 37-39, as you say) that is entitled "Narayana Maharaja". This section, yes, only two pages long, provides in-depth and specific coverage of Bhaktivedanta Narayana. Whether or not this is enough to establish notability is a separate question, but there is no doubt that the Dwyer and Cole book is a secondary reliable source which contains in-depth coverage of the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your enthusiasm for the subject, but being mentioned in a book for two pages does not amount to a reference that establishes notability. Also, a chapter in a book, written about ISKCON's relationship with Bhaktivedant Narayana, by a devotee of Bhaktivedanta Narayana, is a very weak arguement for notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no enthusiasm or interest in the subject. Like JohnZ, I picked this AfD at random, during an hour when I had time to look at the AfD listings. And I agree with JohnZ that this one is not even a close call. Nsk92 (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NSK, I replied to some of your comments above; I disagree on one point. Ism Schism, as I said at the last AfD, your interpretation of the guidelines are nonstandard, and illogically restrictive. If one eliminates everything notable about a person, like their relationships with other notable subjects, then of course one is left with nothing. But that is not an argument, but a useless observation. The scholarly world considers Bhaktivedanta Narayana notable, and thus so do we. The demand that the authors of articles on him be notable is new and has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies. What you are calling self-published does not appear to be that; finally I gave several more unimpeachable scholarly sources above. I and I daresay most of the other experienced "keep" editors have no enthusiasm for Bhaktivedanta Narayana, but much for WIkipedia policy and rational argument. Personally I just picked this AfD at random. The arguments for keeping and notability are very strong; tens of thousands of articles would be deleted if rules were interpreted the way you seem to understand them.John Z (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read all the above? What Ism says is hard to reconcile with policy and usual practice. Ism, have you looked at all the refs? There is far, far more than occasional mentions - a chapter in a book, a subtitled subchapter in another book, a bio at a news site, mentions on a couple of pages in a couple of other scholarly books. And these are only the quite high quality sources. A general one volume, very scholarly treatise on all of Hinduism, an enormous subject, sees fit to mention him. This is a great deal of evidence for notability by usual standards.John Z (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes John Z, I have read all of the above. I read everything again and looked through the article and its reference a second time and my opinion hasn't changed. You may be correct that my and Ism's general standards about notability are much stricter than yours in which case we are relatively more deletionist than you are. GizzaDiscuss © 09:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I apologize for assuming differently. (This is Ism's 3rd AfD nom for this, BTW, there's more in the others and that he excised from the article, IMHO incorrectly.) But this standard seems far more deletionist than usual at AfD. How many peer reviewed, academic press, scholarly references, which IMHO cannot reasonably be called passing mentions, on a subject are necessary?! I have no idea how one can reasonably dispute the statement that academia considers him notable.John Z (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I dispute the statement that academia considers him notable is that Bhaktivedanta Narayana is not "the subject of secondary sources independent of the subject." If there were academic articles written about him by scholars, and/or academic writtings in which Bhaktivedanta Narayana is the subject of secondary sources independent of the subject, then there would be reason believe that academia considers him notable. What is offered as the first source is a lone chapter in a book. This chapter is written by a non notable author/devotee (and I say this because the author is not a religious studies scholar but an elementary school teacher that is a devotee of Bhaktivedanta Narayana) Irvin H. Collins. The second source only mentions Bhaktivedanta Narayana in a few pages out of many hundreds of pages devoted to its subject, ISKCON, please see pages 37 through 39. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by usual standards, "just pp 37-39" (which are subtitled Narayana Maharaja) is more than enough for one RS. A "lone chapter in a book" is much, much more than enough. Look at other AfDs. Collins counts and is independent because it is in an academic book, because of the editors and the press. There are the two other academic works I cited above, one a general work on all of Hinduism!, and www.vnn.org with a short biography, which satisfy the conditions. There's also this article, The Perils of Succession: Heresies of Authority and Continuity In the Hare Krishna Movement in the ISKCON Communications Journal, which had been presented to the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, and which covers him in several paragraphs under the heading The Rasika-bhakti Heresy. That's 5 scholarly sources and one news source. Finally, it should be speedily kept because this 3rd AfD was started only 4 days after the 2nd, with very little new argument; this is not the normal or proper procedure.John Z (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rasika-bhakti Heresy is discussed in The Perils of Succession: Heresies of Authority and Continuity In the Hare Krishna Movement. Bhaktivedant Narayana's relationship with ISKCON is noted as being part of the "Rasika-Bhakti Heresy." Once again the subject of the article is ISKCON. A part of this paper notes Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON - and he is not the subject of this work. He is mentioned in the article as part of one of many "heresies" in ISKCON. None of the above sources are concerned with Bhaktivedanta Narayana as a subject of himself. No scholarly studies of books or academic essays consider Bhativedanta Narayana notable outside of his relationship with ISKCON. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - this article does have sufficient references to stay, however it should be renamed to reflect the concerns with the notability being a 'reflected notability'. I suggest that the name of the article should reflect an obvious conclusion of the previous AfD(2). It should not be a biography, but really an article on Bhaktivedanta Narayana Movement or History of Bhaktivedanta Narayana Schism - which will reflect the subject's notability in as per good RS quoted. After all its not that you can write just about anything in Wiki and especially considering this is WP:BLP - one must be very careful and at the same time one should not use notability of one subject to automatically support a notability of another subject. As the last comment on the articles talk page by ISKCON article editor - It hardly can be placed as a part of the ISKCON article or merged into it - and I agree - it will be UNDUE, but maybe after its renamed it can have a WP:SS section in it, if editors of the ISKCON article agree. If not renamed I would support merge into Gaudiya Matha article. Wikidās ॐ 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was me who introduced reliable references into this article, if article is renamed I would suggest adding Hare Krishna Transformed (The New and Alternative Religions Series) by E. Rochford ISBN 0814775799, pp. 170-171 - again in the context of it being a schismatic movement not being about B Narayana, maybe article can be deleted as our admin DaGizza suggests and a new article created instead on the topic? Wikidās ॐ 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the speedy keep suggestion: There was an error in timing of closing AfD2. Last comment in AfD2 was by Culturalrevival - Redirect and merge on 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Shereth closed it on 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC) just one hour and twenty minutes after - clearly in error as discussion was still going strong. That is a procedural error and one of the reasons for this nomination as is obvious. Wikidās ॐ 13:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that from the above but I still don't think an immediate CfD is appropriate. We should give it a rest, already. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An example of how this could be done is the page on the Swaminarayan Faith. In this article the original group is mentioned, Swaminarayan Sampraday. This is followed by its major divisions since, with the analogous Swaminarayan Gadi. In a merge the original Gaudiya Matha could be discussed as it is in the article with a new section on present day communities that identify as being part of the Gaudiya Matha added for each one that has reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:23, 17 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