Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Narayana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - Peripitus (Talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhaktivedanta Narayana

Bhaktivedanta Narayana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable individual. Article does not make any claim to notablity at all. Wikipedia is not for advertisements for particular gurus, it is a resource for notable individuals. Article has no independent third party sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Individual is a non notable guru. Article does not specify notabilty at all and reads like an advertisement for this particular person. There are no independent third party reliable sources at all, and no claims of notability are given. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Narayana Swami is a very well known figure within Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The article requires improvement, but anyone familiar with this area knows that he is a notable guru. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's standards do not include, "anyone familiar with this area knows that he is a notable guru." If you are familiar please point to reliable sources for references and state how this individual is notable. In its present state the article reads like a "guru advertisement". Ism schism (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails to satisfy Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Besides lacking notability, the article fails to maintain a neutral point of view without massive editing to remove the puffery , spam, and advertising quality, but that comment is not the basis for my deletion argument. Edison (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepMy recent notability references and extensive edits should warrant retention. Honorifics removed to comply with the policy. POV statements removed. Notable.[1] Wikidas (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is written from subject's personal webpage. The main reference is a VNN article which is simply a link to Bhaktivedanta Narayana's personal website at [2]. This VNN article is the exact same article from the subject's personal website. This is not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, the other references only mention the subject in passing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If he was " Editor-in-Chief of its Hindi publications and the monthly magazine 'Sri Bhagavat Patrika' ". then he would probably be notable. As for POV and excessive puffery, I've seen a lot worse in such articles. the way to deal with these where the distinctions are unfamiliar is to look for something objective and specific. DGG (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment You have to admit that, as you stated, "if he was," seems to be the problem here. Where are the references to back up these claims? POV is not the main issue, it is notability of people, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I do not see any evidence in the article to confer notability. This article is not written to show notability, nor have its sources provided third party independent references to prove otherwise. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
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.