Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacinandana Swami

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; after being listed on 4 wikiproject deletion sorting pages, and after relisting the debate upon the expiry of the initial 5-day review, it received no further recommendations. There were contradicting arguments made on each side that seem equally plausible, so the determining factor is the deletion policy itself, which offers guidance to default to keep if there is any doubt. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sacinandana Swami

Sacinandana Swami (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View log)

Individual is not notable and 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) 01:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The individual must be notable and sourced with independent reliable sources. This has not been demonstrated. Also, the amount of Google hits does not establish notability. Ism schism (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Response Wikidas, it has been five days since you made this statement. Where are these refererences you are talking about? If they are reliable sources they would help this discussion. In its present state, the article still fails to satisfy Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikidas, I comend you for your recent additions, but the references your are placing in these articles still fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please note that websites owned by the subject of the article are not reliable and books published by the subject must be reviewed (verified) to see if this attribute is notable. Many preachers write books, diaries, weblogs, etc. These are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you. Sources are reliable and compatible with WIKI policy for RS. Wikidas (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikidas, you only cited conference reports. These do not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and it still has yet to be established how this individual in notable concerning notability of people. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability was not really in dispute for me, as a number of published books were already refered to, links were added Wikidas (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikidas, the number of published books does not establish notablity. These type of references still fail to establish notability of people through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - 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. --SJK (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Response Using the above logic, all ISKCON swamis would have a page on Wikipedia. This is not a small group. Articles on ISKCON swamis must, like other Wikipedia articles, establish their notability of people and establish this through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This has not been done in this article. Ism schism (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Number of publication, news articles and books is a criteria for notability both in ISKCON and in Wiki. Being a Swami or a Dasa does not establish notability both in the Wiki and in the religion followed by ISKCON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidas (talk • contribs) 12:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikidas, it is not the number of books but their quality. This can be verified through book reviews by independent sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment In other articles in this series I've suggested that members of ISKON's 48-member governing body can have notability established from ISKON's role due to ISKON's status as a significant, recognized stream of Hinduism in the West and our general practice of permitting use of religious sources to establish the notability of a religion's senior leaders. However, this applies to significant denominations and major religious leaders, not to local clergy (or tiny denominations). Since there is no claim of membership in ISKON's governing body, the subject appears to be simply another Swami within ISKON. Accordingly, notability needs to be established from other sources such as reviews of his books or significant coverage or commentary on him. Religious sources can be used to establish relgious notability, but notability does need to be established from sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Sacinandana Swami is not a member of the Governing Body Commission. Please see, [1]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Attached is a link to ISKCON's official list of Sannyasis (or Swamis) from 2007. Any persons on this list are at least as notable in ISKCON as any GBC members, if not more so. Can this also be used to judge notability using the same logic as the GBC list? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment it is so easy to become a guru or GBC these days. Anyone who wants to, can do it, really. Its much harder to become a sannyasi. So by this logic its more notable to be a sannyasi in ISKCON. There is no waiting list for GBCs or gurus, but one normally waits at least 5 years for sannyas. So yes its notability proven. Moreover he is very influential leader as well, out of principle not wanting to be a GBC. With regards..Wikidas (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)"
Comment With all respect to --Shirahadasha he does not even know how to spell ISKCON, that could be a reason of not understanding that over the years there were over a hundred GBC secretaries and zonal secretaries so far as membership in ISKON's governing body goes. Wikidas (talk) 20:01, 26 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.