Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hare Krishna in popular culture (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   no consensus. Courcelles 03:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hare Krishna in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:SIGCOV as it merely a list of every time a chanting ISCKON member has been shown in some media. No secondary sourcing contextualizing it simply a list of WP:SYNTH of Primary source material. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete for the same reasons we don't have Catholicism in popular culture In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep for reasons relating to popular culture notability - since pop culture (movies, music, art and television) over the last 40+ years has definitely influenced how this religious group is seen and perceived by the general public. Some guy calling himself an "Anthropologist" called this list, "merely a list of every time a chanting ISCKON member has been shown in some media", to which I disagree. Allen Ginsberg appearing on William F. Buckley, Jr.'s show Firing Line on September 3, 1968, had a big impact on how the group was perceived (this was before they were even well known by most people). Any historian or "anthropologist" who knows anything about the history of the Hare Krishna movement in the Western World, and who is worth any salt, should know this, and how important the influence of George Harrison and The Beatles were to the spread of knowledge about this religious movement too. Also, to the person that said there isn't an article called Catholicism in popular culture, well so what, there's an article called Latter Day Saints in popular culture. The reason is because, comparatively speaking, Catholicism is basically already all over popular culture in the modern Western World, especially compared to more fringe groups like the Mormons (in comparison to Catholicism), and especially the Hare Krishna movement. I also think it would be fine if there was a Catholicism in popular culture article on Wikipedia too. I wouldn't have a problem with that, and articles for the more fringe groups especially. It should also be noted that there's a page entitled Humor about Catholicism, as well as Gnosticism in popular culture, and Scientology in popular culture. I think it would be a mistake to get rid of these pages, because I think they contain some useful information for those interested in fringe religious groups and movements and how they become popular and more well-known through the media. These things are of sociological interest, and I do not think they should be removed from Wikipedia. Geneisner (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per in ictu Avi (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If secondary sourcing described the phenomenon that would be one thing. So far we have nothing but oh he mentioned "Hare Krishna" or a secondary source mentioning ISCKON member in a movie. We require more than such tangental connections to write about the phenomenon. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I fully agree with the nominator. Somebody needs to start triviapedia (along the lines of TV Tropes), because this article nuthin' but that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep When notable cultural artifacts, such a widely known religious movements, or other  particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. Wikipedia particular is the best known, and the best,  encyclopedic source for this material--it is one of our great strengths, and should not be diluted or compromised.  All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly.

These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article (there are about 10% I have some trouble with). Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given.

The study of the cultural effects of religion is a very basic and encyclopedic subject. The significance of this religious movement in the world, or any religious or political movement, is not only its doctrines and practices and history in the abstract, but the effect to which it has permeated popular consciousness. Christianity, for example, is important not just because it is widely practised, but because   it is the basis of most European formal culture and much of folk culture for many centuries. Hare Krishna is important not just because of its significant number of devotees, but because it has permeated a considerable amount of American and to a lesser degree Western European culture for the last 50 years or so.  DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (or keep everything but the See Also section). As per above.Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 8 August 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.