Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakti Caitanya Swami


 * 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 Consensus = Keep. -- VS talk 10:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bhakti Caitanya Swami

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable ISKCON swami, no independent reliable sources. Does not meet the standards of Reliable sources and Biographies of living persons Ism schism (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable and no independent third party sources in article. Ism schism (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fewer than 48 Swami in ISKN. Plenty of on-line third-party sources (see Google - 2000 hits). --Oldak Quill 01:57, 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) 02:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 05:41, 10 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) 09:13, 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 Reliable sources. This has not been done in this article. Ism schism (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 15:51, 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 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe (for the reasons stated on other AfDs) that given ISKON's status as a notable, substantial religion membership on the 48-member ISKON Governing Body Commission is sufficient to convey notability, just as membership in the College of Cardinals or the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is in other religious denominations. I also believe that ISKON sources are reliable for verifying who is a senior ISKON leader. Religious sources are generally reliable for religious issues such as religious roles and religious notability. However, sources verifying that this individual is on the ISKON governing board do need to be produced, whether from ISKON or somewhere else, to justify a keep. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:45, 22 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.