Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hansadutta 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   keep. Shimeru (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hansadutta Swami

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article is largely unsourced since August 2009, and tagged. It is BLP and thus have to be deleted since article does not provide for verification on notability. Wikid as&#169; 14:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Am I missing something? I see 10 footnotes/references. Could you fact tag the article so Wikipedians can see which areas need improvement? Chopper Dave (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note -- there are no reliable sources that are dedicated to this person. The only decent secondary source that is quote is New York Times 20 Nov 1988 however it is not about Hansaduta Swami, he is mentioned in passing. Among the '10 footnotes' are dead links, non verifiable notes, self-published dairy by another non-notable fellow Hari Sauri das and yet another self published source by Vedavyasa das (How reliable is that?) both are not complying with the core policy WP:V. As it stands the whole article is not just OR, it absolutely does not accert notability based on independend reliable sources. Wikid as&#169; 13:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. I've also added some other sources. There's other stuff out there, it just has to be sorted through. Silver  seren C 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in case someone would not look at the article and would think that reliable sources that support a notability were added, I provide the diff here of your edit. Wikid as&#169; 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Silver  seren C 23:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You said "I've also added some other sources." -- you did not. So your argument is not valid. Wikid as&#169; 08:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Encyclopedic handbook of cults in America" - Google Books
 * "Hare Krishna Mantra Hits Hollywood" - VNN
 * These don't count as sources? Silver  seren C 08:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One is a teritary source that mentions his name in passing and without a reference of any sources, second is a sectarian self publshed website, hardly or ever used as a reliable source. Wikid as&#169; 09:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If its a notable enough cult to be included in that handbook, and one of its key figures mentioned, then that counts to his notability.  D r e a m Focus  07:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep fairly notorious (therefore notable) iskcon figure, mentioned in Monkey on a stick: murder, madness and the Hare Krishnas By John Hubner and Lindsey Gruson, a major "expose" of the religion in the 70s and 80s. this book is a notable work in the literature on such religions. i think with a little rescue effort, this person can be easily shown as notable. i can tell you his name has stuck in my mind for 20 years, and not for nonnotable reasons (ie hes not my cousin or something). i dont have the tools to do the research on him myself. i of course would welcome NPOV additions, including any good works or neutral facts. im just noting that for his notoriety (deserved or not), he qualifies as notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with NPOV additions, the fact is that your argument WP:IKNOWIT is unnacceptable. The only basis on which one establish notability is reliable sources. At the moment there are (still) none that support any notion of notability. So unless you cite sources, your WP:IKNOWIT will not do. Wikid as&#169; 08:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * i know that "iknowit" isnt a valid argument. my apologies for invoking it even tangentially. the book i list IS a reliable source, i just dont know to what extent he is actually mentioned in the book. the scandals around this religion were a really big deal at that time, and this is the definitive account of the events, i believe. if i had the book, or was inclined to find a copy at a library and read it, i would add it as a RS. im hoping that others will be able to do so. Im simply saying that i believe there are reliable sources, probably just not as easy to find online at this time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are several sources already and Wikidas' criticisms of the sources appear to be unfounded. older ≠ wiser 18:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely have not problem against your vote, except for you for some reason supporting poor sources on a different article's page Kirtanananda Swami. I would appreciate if you just add sources to the article to make sure you will illustrate that there are several sources that comply with notability guidelines. Nothing personal, just a request.  Wikid as&#169; 07:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment i was able to read some of the content of "monkey on a stick" online, and it appears this person is a major figure in the book and the scandal, and has been vilified for years for his role, and has issued mea culpas admitting to damaging the movement immensely. so, all we need is page refs to the hard copy. obviously, i cant link to the online selections, as they are copyvios.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of sources out there. The Google news search shows him listed in different major newspapers for the gun stockpiling scandal.  Other sources already find add to his notability.   D r e a m Focus  07:21, 14 April 2010 (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.