Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakti Vikasa 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bhakti Vikasa Swami
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable swami - primary sources article. was already deleted and AfD is on record, no other publications since. All recently added references do not refer or support notability. Has to be deleted and redirected to ISKCON. Wikid as&#169; 07:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This topic was disscussed on previous AfD debates on ISKCON personalities. One of the opinions that was given by Wikipedia editors, is 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."

Additional criteria for notability was membership in Governing Body Commission. Bhakti Vikasa Swami is a swami and initiating guru in ISKCON, which makes him a member of a highly selective small group of religious leaders. I've made some research into the topic. Presently, there're 85 swamis in ISKCON, but only 50 of them are initiating gurus. Being just a swami or an initiating guru in ISKCON doesn't make one notable, but being both at the same time does. More so if one is a member of the Governing Body Commission (which is not the case here). Another opinion expressed in previous AfD debates (with which I tend to agree),

"It's true that the subject is only coincidentally mentioned in sources outside of the religious hierarchy he belongs to. But he is verifiably (including according to 3rd party sources) part of that religious hierarchy. In theory this alone should not make him notable. But in practice every Catholic cardinal is, even though most pages of that kind have no references other than Catholic ones. In the absence of any explicit notability guidelines regarding religious figures, this is a de facto guideline for inclusion (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gets IAR'd here). Unless you want to delete 90% of the cardinals of course. Frankly, I think that something similar to Notability_(academics) should be drafted for religious figures as well, i.e. they should somehow stand out amongst their peers. Being part of the highest level (under the top figure) of a religious hierarchy would qualify as the religious equivalent of 'elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association'."

ISKCON leaders can have notability established from ISKCON's sources due to ISKCON's status as a significant, recognized stream of Hinduism in the West and Wikipedia's general practice of permitting use of religious sources to establish the notability of a religion's senior leaders.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Please do not ignore the fact that article was deleted via previous AfD because of the lack of notability. Not even a member of the Governing Body Commission and every single mention in third party reliable sources is of one of his books. If a particular publication is notable, it can be used for an article about the book. There is nothing special about this particular swami in ISKCON, one of some 170 who received sannyasa. Any particular notability since the time of the article about him deleted? I guess you did not even look at previous AfD, it had a clear consensus of delete. It is against the basic rules to recreate the article that has been deleted and then move it to the previous name as well. Anything published since 08 that makes him notable? Ignoring this is not an option. Wikid as&#169; 11:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The were 0 third party references in the article when the previous AfD debate was closed to delete. Now I've added a few. Plus I have new arguments to keep this article, you can't just ignore them. To become sannyasi or initiating guru in ISKCON is much more difficult than to become a governing body commissioner. Hence, the group of guru/sanyasis is more selective and important. Each of 50 ISKCON leaders, belonging to this group of guru/sannyasi does deserve an article in Wikipedia just as leaders of any other notable religious denomination. BTW, at least three of his books were used as sources in academic publications.--Gaura79 (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You should consider the fact that diff you have removed the tag of Notability - I suggest you are not partial to this particular individual and are pulling references out of thin air, all references cited do not pull notability at all and that is besides that fact that they all were published before AfD taken to be delete. There no way one can recreate an article on such dodgy references -- (mention in) Europe's Journal of Psychology. and {even dodgier) "It's (Still) a Boy...: Making the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques... " - absolutely not. There is no difference between first and second article -- I guess you are the same Gauranga who was the only person to voice an objection to otherwise obvious deletion in the first conclusive AfD. Wikid as&#169; 13:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The deletion was far from being obvious. I think it's better to discuss and find a consensus on notability of ISKCON leaders. There're no specific notability criteria for religious figures, but de facto, religious figures of the same caliber from other denominations are considered notable, and practically all the articles on them don't have any third party sources at all. Why in case with ISKCON (or with Vaishnavism or Hinduism in general) it should be different? My proposition is that 50 ISKCON swamis/gurus/GBCs is a sufficiently small group and each member of this group potentially can have article about him in Wikipedia (most of them already do have one).--Gaura79 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The status of guru in ISKCON is open and at the rate new gurus are created it is clear that beside present hundred gurus there will be more and more. Being a sannyasi (e.g. swami) is just a stage of life, e.g. renounced stage, it is not a reason for notability. How by attending a 'guru' seminar and being 'old and single' one can just assume to be here if there are no sources to even suggest that he is a leader? There are so many gurus that are not leaders, same with sannyasis. There absolutely no source to suggest that this person is a leader in ISKCON. It is not a place to discuss general notability of ISKCON leaders, but in this case it is clear -- previously deleted article of a guru and sannyasi in ISKCON was recreated, even the notice on the Talk page was deleted - I had to remind that this article is already deleted! Wikid as&#169;
 * Still we are talking about a small and highly selective group of about 50 religious leaders. It is a small and highly selective group now, and it will be always in the future. To become a sannyasi in ISKCON one has to fulfill many requirements, the same thing is with becoming a guru. It's not just through attending a guru seminar or becoming an old and single that one becomes guru or swami.--Gaura79 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point - he was a guru and a sannyasi at the time of first AfD, thus no other reason is found to include already deleted article. Wikid as&#169; 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is still non-notable and was recreated against consensus per Articles for deletion/Bhakti Vikasa Swami - and as such should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Recreation of a previously deleted non-notable subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Ism schism--Notedgrant (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2009 (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.