Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia


 * 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   speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and unanimous support for keeping the article. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable subject. Possible OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Of the five sources in the article, 3 appear to be independent RS news reports. I agree that there's a fair amount of weasel wording going on which needs cleanup, and think that despite having multiple RS so far, this might better be covered as a section in a larger article. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Maybe in the article on Hinduism in Russia? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply I may be wrong, but judging by how the issue is developing, it will likely to grow beyond the scope of another article's subsection. Lets wait and see, merging is never late. I would be grateful if you point out the areas requiring a cleanup at the article's talkpage, unless you feel like editing them yourself. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk)


 * Strong keep The subject notable per WP:EVENT, because:
 * this is about a legal case with permanent effect (per WP:NTEMP and WP:EFFECT),
 * which has already affected and will further affect a large international societal group, namely, followers of Hinduism in Russia and India (per WP:GEOSCOPE), and has become a topic of discussion between the governments of India and Russia ,
 * which has been extensively covered (per WP:INDEPTH) in a variety of reliable media sources, including Times of India, Moscow Times, Forum 18, and Yahoo! News, as well as in a number of Russian-medium news sources (see the Russian version of this article ) (per WP:DIVERSE),
 * and which has been going on and been covered in these media for the last few months (per WP:PERSISTENCE).
 * I would like the nominator to elucidate on the "possible WP:OR" allegation. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Update With the new developments in the Parliament of India today:, , , this issue is notable beyond any doubt. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep three different news media sources, and one advocacy media source with limited and conditional reliability. There's currently OR by SYNTHESIS (as marked), which is easily resolved by removing the synthetic clauses. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.31.110 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As per above comments notable enough to keep. -- ɑηsuмaη  ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 05:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep : The article is Notable and not OR Jethwarp (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have removed the two clauses marked as synthesis; the article is clearly encyclopedic, well-sourced, and certainly notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for copyediting and for your support. I thought, though, there was no synthesis or OR in the first place, as both clauses were cited from RS:

The book may be accused of expressing religious hatred, suppressing human dignity and declaring one religion superior to all others. But “Bhagavad Gita as It Is” can hardly be called Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” Still — if prosecutors in Tomsk have their way — the two may soon end up together on the Justice Ministry’s list of banned extremist literature.

Bhagavad Gita, one of the holiest Hindu scriptures, is facing a legal ban and the prospect of being branded as "an extremist" literature across Russia.
 * But not a big deal. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given how hot the issue is, the choice I think is probably either to quote exactly (as you've done here, using quotation marks or the quote tag) or not to mention it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Citing that hysteria from Forum 18 is a singularly bad idea given their commitment to esoteric—ie implicit—"truth". Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo, although I'd rather keep our discussion on Forum 18 at the RS Notice Board, but, briefly, (1) the two clauses that you marked as "synthesis" did not cite Forum 18, and (2) Forum 18 is cited extensively as a RS on religious freedom in the former Soviet Union by university-published books:, , , and in a number of other serious pubications.  So I do not think their "intrinsic truth" is overly esoteric: "intrinsic – belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring. (from Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary)" Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and Close - I nominated this article, and in a short amount of time this subject has become the story for many reliable sources, many international. It is a current event, and is changing, i.e. growing. As such, I think the article should clearly be kept and expanded. In a short period of time a lot has changed. This is a very clear keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 *  Strong keep per above. Thanks. --Shruti14 talk • sign 22:54, 19 December 2011 (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.