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 delete. ✗plicit 03:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urmila Devi Dasi[edit]

Urmila Devi Dasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All ISKCON members are not notable. Lack of major work or post held. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Promotional bio based on self published or dependent (ISKCON) sources. Last Afd in 2010 had only WP:ITSNOTABLE comments. No evidence of notability was provided. (similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gour Govinda Swami) Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What has changed since the previous three AfDs? I'm leaning towards agreeing that she lacks notability but I think you need to show how this is different to previous nominations. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All the sources in the article are not independent of the subject. Can't find any other sources with WP:SIGCOV - SUN EYE 1 03:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What has changed since the previous nominations is that we've become a little more objective about promotional articles for authors. If she hadwritten a major textbook series used world-wide or even nationally she might be notable, but it's designed especially for ISKON and probably only used there. ` DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of any coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:49, 24 January 2022 (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.