Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishnadas Babaji

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 Delete. Cbrown1023 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Krishnadas Babaji

Krishnadas Babaji (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

non notable monk, material unverifiable; I can't find any references to this person outside of the work of Richard Shaw Brown, who also seems to be the main author of this article. Could be notable, but who knows? Brianyoumans 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep---Dear Editors, I am surprised there is no other reference to Krishnadas Babaji. Among the 1000 disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Takura he was the favorite, maybe because he never took disciples, even though he was highly realized. He was an "avadhuta" sadhu, or one who posseses nothing. In Vaishnava philosophy such humility its treated with the highest respect known to man, in most all religions. The irony is that he is the MOST qualified to be included among notable persons, yet is desires it the least, He couldn't speak English so I was the rare Westerner who got to know him and see his life. But if he doesn't fit then please delete him as your policy. OTHERWISE: May I reduce his page to a short blurb? Thanks, Richard Shaw Brown
  • Keep This person is notable enough to receive an biographical article. Would recommend that sources be included in article to make it conform with Verifiability and Reliable Sources. I do not believe this article should be deleted. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Though the article itself states several times "He is notable because...," none of the reasons given actually establish notability. Furthermore, there are no sources so verifiability has not been met either. He may be notable, some of the text hints at this... but without sources we can't keep it. --The Way 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now The article was tagged for notability less than two weeks ago, which may not have been enough time for its author to come up with reliable sources. The author seems to be confusing notability with notoriety; I've added a clarification on that article's talk page in the hopes of steering further edits in the right direction. Flakeloaf 02:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now per Flakeloaf. Addhoc 13:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Technically, the author of an article is supposed to include all citations when the article is created. We are not required in any way to keep unsourced information and it's perfectly legitimate to delete information that isn't sourced without warning. An AfD lasts five days; there is still time left to add sources before the AfD is closed, sources that should have been included when the original information is added. --The Way 06:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Have simplified the article. He was a recluse. I hope it is OK now--Rsbj66 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless notability is established in the usual way by WP:BIO. Coming into this AFD and saying "oh but he is notable" doesn't do much good unless solid references are given. If the article is improved to pass WP:BIO please notify me on my talk page so that I can consider changing my vote. — coelacan talk — 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as the only source cited is original research, therefore, failes WP:V. Also as it was stated, the subject was a recluse and probably known by only the people within the Vaishnavism group that the user joined in India. As he is the author of the only source and a member of the religious party, inclusion of this article on Wikipedia may be considerd WP:ADVERT. BTW, the user Rsbj66 has been warned before about WP:N regarding his autobiographical article, Richard Shaw Brown, and was guided to read up on Wikipedia policeis before. -- Emana 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets notability guidelineBakaman 04:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What part meets WP:N, please explain -- Emana 16:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)?
      • The fact that he was noted in VNN a prominent vaisnava newspaper.Bakaman 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That is great! I don't know about laws in other countries, but If the VNN is a serialized newspaper that is printed at least four times a year, it qualifies as a bonafied periodical under US law and will definitely satisfy WP:N for being non-trivial. Can you get us more information on VNN? Because expanding a well cited article beats deleting one any day. -- Emana 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The article in VNN appears to be about a different person with a similar name. The Krishnadas Babaji of the Wikipedia article died in 1980; the obit in VNN is about someone who died in 2003. I can't read the material in the pdf, so I have no idea whether it relates to the person that Richard S. Brown is writing about. Is "Krishnadas Babaji" even a "real" name? Or is it more of a name that someone might take on becoming a monk, like a Christian monk named "Brother Bartholomew"? There may be many monks with this name. --Brianyoumans 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Clarification: the article listed as "VNN World" does not seem to be about 'our' Babaji. Of the three links added by RSB, 2 don't presently work, and the third actually does seem to be about 'our' Babaji, although the names don't match completely. I think we are making a little progress. I am still a little concerned about how notable this person is, but at least we have some independent evidence that he existed. --Brianyoumans 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Further comment: It is unclear how much value to put on articles on VNN; articles are not written by reporters but instead solicited from viewers, although they are supposed to meet certain standards. --Brianyoumans 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The free participation model of VNN does raise questions of reliability as a source, but it does not discredit it totally. Yet, as Wikipedia itself suggests that we should not cite other articles on Wikipedia, any source shadier than Wikipedia itself should be considered not up to the standards of verifiability. Also, User:Rsbj66 has added his own website as an external link further diluting his own credibility against his claims of not promoting himself or his organizations. -- Emana 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, this is the other guy that died in 1982. Also heavily edited by User:Rsbj66 with no other sources listed but his own site. -- Emana 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh. So, we are presently left with afaik no functional outside references to the subject of this afd. I am also coming to believe, having looked at these various articles and some of the VNN site, that the identifying names and titles in the article are so common that it is very easy to get confused between different Babajis, Krishnadases, Maharajes, and Srilas. --Brianyoumans 06:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please also see the discussions going on at Rsbj66's other articles. Jump to see also section.
  • No opinion about the person's actual notability, but the contents of the article are unsalvageable - unverifiable religious claims stated as fact. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Request to Closing Admin If you don't want to delete based on this discussion, please relist for more discussion. I feel that over the course of this discussion it has become evident that the author is unable to come up with any independent verification of the subject's notabiility or even existence, but this was not evident to the early "keep" votes. --Brianyoumans 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough in Vaishnava and Ikcson. See this long biography (in Italian) [1] He is one of the few saints listed in this page: [2] --Mallarme 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The article in Italian seems very clearly to be about a different person - compare the photos, and also look at the fact that that person seems to have been still alive in the 1990s, while "our" Babaji died around 1980. And the list of "saints" is just a list, and I can't tell which name you believe matches - there are many similar names. As I have said above, that is one of the major problems here - it seems there are many monks with very similar names. --Brianyoumans 02:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above discussion. utcursch | talk 10:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See Also

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.