Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacinandana Swami (2nd nomination)

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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sacinandana Swami

Sacinandana Swami (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I understand that you will now consider every guru for potential deletion, just because its guru advertisement. That is not a correct understanding. Before considering please note discussion under Wikipedia Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hinduism/Vaishnavism Religious leaders and reliable sources: - appears to be an organised attempt by two individuals to remove certian individuals. Wikidās ॐ Thanks guys 08:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Wikidas, you know proper sources as you have done with Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. This article is not sourced with reliable sources, like Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. I am not against gurus, just unsourced articles. If you know of sources please provide them. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  Reply I guess the answer is simple. He has references in German and other european languages. I can look it into and find the English ones, but it is harder, since he is German. There are some references there, unlike for example Jayapataka Swami who does not have a single and still is not on this list, so there is something wrong.Wikidās ॐ Wrote this note at 18:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A Google news search shows Jayapataka Swami to be a leader of ISKCON. A search for Sacinandana Swami reveals nothing. Thanks.Ism schism (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It must be an indian Google. Please find below references that comply with a conclusion that Sacinandana Swami is notable - includes all official ISKCON sites. I do not say that JPS is not, just a stange criteria is applied just to delete a gurus page. [1]-German Leader [2]EuroGBC site - leading teacher [3] Sacinandana Swami, initiating guru in ISKCON. Gayatri His book is the first reference on WIKI - Sacinandana Swami: The Gayatri Book., Vasati Verlag, 2005, ISBN 978-3-937238-05-0 [4] - Shown as a part of the selected notable ISKCON leaders list [5] is one of the main ISKCON gurus, [6] Honorable Speaker and Guest on The first Peace Summit in Croatia, Sri Swami Madhavananda World Peace Summit and the Message of Mahatma Gandhi, organised by Croatian Union of "Yoga In Daily Life", [7][8] VIHE speaker [9] Notable Harinama Leader, [10]Sacinandana Swami is teacher at the Vedanta Department of the Florida Vedic College and the European Academy for Vedic Sciences.[11]Notable kirtania [12] Prominnent guru, [13] Lecturer at Bhaktivedanta College [14] etc

I did not even start looking for book references. Note all of it is NOT his personal blog site. All of the above proves beyound any doubt that the individual is notable leader sannyasi teacher and prominent guru in ISKCON.

Its clearly a case of mistaken identity that your search did not reaveal it all. Im going to add all this references to the page.

I think you are just using a time when most of the devotees are in Vrindavana and thus can not comment on this.. (a wild guess).

Please note that the type of sources DO comply with the consensus of the discussion you yourself called for:

Discussions on notability criteria for ISKCON religious leaders are located at: Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, and Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Ism schism (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I call upon you to close this (2nd) Nomination.Wikidās ॐ 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced and unreferenced guru ad. Dreamspy (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Attached is a link to ISKCON's official list of Sannyasis (or Swamis) from 2007. Any persons on this list are of significant notability, especially so in regards to a handful of the most prominent gurus. Sacinanda Swami is one such guru on this ist. Above and beyond this, a Google search for Sacinananda Swami brings up over 11,000 hits. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I acknowledge he gets many Google hits, but no Google news articles. He is a guru. He is a swami. Aside from these two features though he is not notable. He is not even a member of ISKCON's Governing Body Commission. Aside from the personal websites listed above, there still are no reliable sources as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• These are not personal sites - these are official sites: [15] Radhadesh - Bhaktivedanta College [16] VIHE [17]EAVS [18] Dandavats [19] Bhagavat [20]VNN, [21] Goloka Dhama temple and main ISKCON site: [22]

He even has his own WIKI Answers page - [23]

See also [24] Wikidās ॐ 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. He has been verified to be one of 78 officially recognised Swamis in ISKCON, which would put him roughly on the same level of importance as Catholic or Anglican bishops, who are usually considered to be notable by virtue of their position. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I vote keep. Why? Probably because I am a partisan. I think that these articles should ideally have independent sources, but that it is better to have self sourced info articles than zero information on these people whom I like to read about and would be sad if Wikipedia deleted. David G Brault (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia keeps the pages for obscure, one minor hit wonder pop music singers (Luscious Jackson) or some small town with no stop light even (Mifflin, Pennsylvania), why not Maharaja's page? He's a writer, initiating spiritual master and lectures world wide. The fanboy aura of the page could be reduced. 75.91.80.24 (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I said the same thing last time, and I'll say it again: I would say that we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability. I also don't understand what was the justification for re-opening this AFD so soon after the previous one concluded in a keep. It is as if the nominator didn't like the outcome last time, and will try the process again and again until they get the outcome they want. --SJK (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that I am not a Hare Krishna, and I neither have any great sympathy nor antipathy towards their religion. But, I still think this article belongs in Wikipedia. --SJK (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment We've generally made a distinction between a significant religious group's key leaders on the one hand, and ordinary clergy on the other. Being a founder or responsible for the governance of a religious group (such as being a member of the College of Cardinals or ISKON's Governing Body Commission is different from simply being a member of the clergy. Although ordination connotes a certain level of knowledge, piety, and respect, ordination alone does not generally imply notability in the sense meant by WP:BIO or reduce the need for reliable sources. Being on a list of ordained priests, rabbis, ministers, or imams would not be considered evidence of notability. It is not clear to me that being on a list of swamis is different. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Swamis are little like cardinals who travel, and GBC is more like resident(if grihastha) or zonal(if swami) cardinals who manage money and man. But in his case he is notable among both types because he is an educator. Wikidās ॐ 16:38, 1 April 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.